video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
by Jack
This is the last comment I intend to make on this, because it’s really sad and there are no winners coming out of it. Cain’s family has been ripped apart and devastated and I feel for them. Unfortunately, this is the rough part of politics. Cain’s campaign has been damaged beyond repair and therefore to some extent all republicans have suffered a loss as well. We had high hopes for Herm and this is a real tragedy for the cause.
The current speculation is Cain will soldier on as long as his campaign money is coming in because he has campaign debts to meet and then he will withdraw from politics.
As of right now, Cain is still steadfastly denying any untoward relationships with any of his women accusers. And to be fair, nobody here is proclaiming him guilty of anything, because we really don’t know, we only know what it looks like. However, we have set standards for ourselves and therefore we ought to give this scandal at least as much attention as we would if it was a democrat candidate’s scandal or we would be guilty of doing what the MSM does to our republican candidates.
This video is submitted ONLY for your consideration and that’s it, no hidden agenda, no politics, just honesty for honesty’s sake, unlike the MSM.
Last night on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News program he concluded that Cain’s campaign will probably not recover and that he will soon be withdrawing…he too mentioned the campaign debts as a reason for staying…for now. He (like many of us) expressed great disappointment and wished Herm Cain and his family well. He hopes they can cope with what has happened and move on. Me too. Feel free to comment, but do not expect any replies from me – I’m done with this.
She’s a very nicely spoken lady. I especially like the part where she come forward because she didn’t like seeing all the other ladies getting trashed, when they were telling the truth … and Cain was not.
The man is a standard issue political hypocrite (and he ain’t the only one, neither) … and ya’all been tuk in again!
How many more time’s this gonna happen? It’s important! How many?
Jack I agree there are no winners in this. Cain’s family will suffer most.
There is the possibility that Cain has done these things. There is the possibility that he’s being targeted. I would think the fourth estate would require more evidence before accepting this story for wide coverage. It seems to me we once had more concern for the family and a persons reputation but today it seems anything goes. The MSM are reduced to tabloid journalism.
Before I quit commenting I must share Coulters take on the women and their accusations for anyone who might be interested:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47857
Tina: “I would think the fourth estate would require more evidence before accepting this story for wide coverage.”
Why?
This is an honest question. When has the media ever NOT pounced on a story about sexual harassment allegations directed at an important political figure?* Certainly in the case of Clinton, the charges were all over the news as soon as they were made. Personally, I think such charges are newsworthy. The media should report on it as a CHARGE, of course, and not just give one side of the story; but I don’t see why it shouldn’t be given wide coverage.
“Before I quit commenting I must share Coulters take on the women and their accusations for anyone who might be interested:”
I honestly can’t figure out why you’d put stock in that woman’s take on anything after her disgusting remarks about the 9/11 widows.
Let me guess, before I even read it: she brought up the fact that some of the accusers are single mothers in order to defame their character, didn’t she?
Oh, look! I was right! She did do exactly that! How did I know? Because single mothers are not credible in Coulter’s world.
Coulter hurts her own credibility by demeaning single mothers. The basic argument that we should give Cain the benefit of the doubt is solid. But she can’t help but let her elitism and hatred of those she sees as “less than” intrude on what might otherwise be a cogent argument.
Oh, and in my previous comment I meant to leave a note attached to the asterisk: *I can’t believe I live in a world where Herman Cain can be correctly described as an “important political figure.” This saddens me.
Chris: “Why?…When has the media ever NOT pounced on a story about sexual harassment allegations directed at an important political figure?”
I think they have a responsibility to have factual information before they go public with information on any candidate (including Clinton)…I don’t them to change their ways any time soon.
The initial accusations about Cain were so incredibly empty! And the women backed away very quickly when they realized they would be caught up negatively in their stories.
“Let me guess, before I even read it: she brought up the fact that some of the accusers are single mothers in order to defame their character, didn’t she?”
She has information that is at least as newsworthy as the accusation White has made. White has skeletons in her closet that would make her a poor witness in a courtroom and that make her accusations suspect. There is motive buried in that closet and a pattern of behavior that suggests she is a “troubled” woman.
You know, Chris, single mothers are human beings; some do have poor character, questionable motives, and bad reputations. There are women who are capable…VERY capable of being real covert b*$#hes. Let’s not pretend women are always lilly white innocents.
News people have a responsibility to look at the credibility and background of accusers as well as the accused. (They certainly did with the accusers of Clinton.)
I don’t think we’ve heard the end of this unless White chooses to quietly slink away and/or Cain drops out, something he could well do for his family’s sake.
Reports about the 77 phone messages reveal little so far that suggest an affair. If that turn out to be true a good case could be made for her either being a pawn in this political game or a troubled woman looking for money & book opportunities…or even just attention.
Coulter does research. She cares about facts. She too is not willing to let the antique media decide what the American people will learn and what will be kept under wraps.
Tina: “She has information that is at least as newsworthy as the accusation White has made. White has skeletons in her closet that would make her a poor witness in a courtroom and that make her accusations suspect. There is motive buried in that closet and a pattern of behavior that suggests she is a “troubled” woman.”
Perhaps. But the fact that she is a single mother has nothing to do with that. Being a single mother is not suggestive of skeletons in one’s closet or of being a “troubled woman.” Being a single mother does not make a person a poor witness in a courtroom, or her accusations suspect. But that’s exactly what Coulter was implying. That’s offensive to me, as the son of a single mother. And it should be offensive to you as a woman.
No comment on her remarks about the 9/11 widows? “Greedy harpies?” Those are her most famous (or, rather, infamous) words.
“You know, Chris, single mothers are human beings; some do have poor character, questionable motives, and bad reputations. There are women who are capable…VERY capable of being real covert b*$#hes. Let’s not pretend women are always lilly white innocents.”
I never pretended anything of the sort. What Coulter is pretending is that simply being a single mother is evidence of poor character, questionable motives, a bad reputation, etc.
That’s just not the truth.
“If that turn out to be true a good case could be made for her either being a pawn in this political game or a troubled woman looking for money & book opportunities…or even just attention.”
You have just perfectly described Ann Coulter.
“Coulter does research. She cares about facts.”
No, she doesn’t. Ann Coulter cares about nothing but keeping the name Ann Coulter out there. She is an attention-starved know-nothing who makes money by saying the most shocking things she can get away with. She frequently advocates that her political opponents be murdered, as she did with Bill Clinton, New York Times journalists, and most recently, Occupy Wall Street protesters. This is a woman who says that kindergarten teachers are “useless public sector workers” and says that Muslims and Arabs should travel by flying carpets rather than airplanes, because they are apparently so inferior to the rest of us. When a seventeen-year old Muslim girl respectfully confronted Coulter about this, and made it clear that Coulter’s comments were hurtful and offensive toward her, Coulter did not apologize, and instead told her to take a camel.
She’s got a lot of nerve to question the character and reputation of other women. She has no character and a terrible reputation.
Chris: “Perhaps. But the fact that she is a single mother has nothing to do with that.”
How do you know? It is quite possible, given the other problems that plague her, that this information is an indication of her instability. It could be a part of the pattern that shows she has poor character and would be willing to lie…for money. Coulter is a lawyer; she know how to build a case and what kinds of things would be used in the courtroom. Any woman that is willing to make accusations without proof has to know she is inviting this kind of scrutiny.
And none of this has anything to do with single mothers in general.
“But that’s exactly what Coulter was implying.”
Coulter was suggesting a pattern of behavior and choices that could suggest instability and crete a basis for a possible motive for lying….money. (we discovered today she has asked Cain for money)
“That’s offensive to me, as the son of a single mother.”
Which is why you can’t look at this without becoming emotional and defensive.
“What Coulter is pretending is that simply being a single mother is evidence of poor character, questionable motives, a bad reputation, etc.”
No…she is presenting a possible defense using her skills as a trained lawyer and given the negative press generated by this womans accusations for Cain I have no problem considering that possible defense.
This is what makes this kind of accusation so slimy and low. The man will be tried in the court of public opinion and unless someone comes to his defense that will be where it ends. A man is destroyed and his family badly damaged over a questionable claim and little evidence…in the press! thank God for the Ann Coulters who say, “Wait just a darn minute!
“No, she doesn’t. ”
Next time you’re in a bookstore pick up a copy of any of her books. Not only does she do extensive research but she includes the references throughout her work.
“Blah, blah, blah…I hate Ann Coulter….”
Which is your priviledge.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of her many fans, you wrong. But if you want to debate about her every utterance you will have to find another venue.
Tina, your assertion that Coulter’s single mother jab has nothing to do with single mothers in general is logically incoherent. In order to argue this, you have to believe two conflicting ideas at once:
1) The fact that Ginger White is a single mother is evidence that she is of poor character.
2) Being a single mother is not evidence that someone is of poor character.
It clearly makes no sense to believe both of these ideas. Pick one.
I am not being “emotional” or “defensive” about Ann Coulter’s hateful remarks toward single mothers. I am responding with an appropriate level of disgust and outrage given her offensive remarks.
“In my opinion, and in the opinion of her many fans, you wrong. But if you want to debate about her every utterance you will have to find another venue.”
Not her “every utterance.” The specific statements I brought up are significant. They point toward a woman of poor character, a woman who will say anything to shock people and gain attention, no matter how hurtful to others it is. Is it really acceptable to you for someone to call widows who lost their husbands in 9/11 “greedy harpies” simply because they disagree politically with Ann Coulter? Do you believe it’s acceptable for someone to call for the assassination of a U.S. president, of American journalists, or American protesters? Do you typically accept it when people hurl racist and religiously discriminatory taunts at 17-year old girls? Since you continue to unequivocally support Coulter, and have not qualified this support with any criticism of these statements, which have been pointed out to you before, I have to believe that you see nothing wrong with such statements. And that makes me question your character as well.
You have brought up outrageous statements made by liberals to my attention before, and I have responded to them, often by acknowledging that they were wrong and pointing out exactly how they are wrong. I really, genuinely don’t understand people who can’t do that. That kind of stubborn partisanship frankly disgusts me, whether it comes from a liberal or a conservative.
I know I should know better by now than to expect any kind of critical statement toward Coulter or any other influential conservative from you, no matter what they say. After all, just a few weeks ago, you tried to diminish a statement from Rush Limbaugh in which he falsely and maliciously accused our president and military of “wiping out Christians” in Uganda. If Rush were interested in the truth, he would have done five seconds of research and realized this wasn’t true before making this claim over the air. But you acted like such an outrageous charge was just innocent speculation, which is prima facie absurd. This leads me to believe that nothing is off-limits for you as long as it comes from an influential person on your side of the political fence. Nothing is so uncivil or untrue that you can’t find some way to justify it.
This kind of blanket tolerance for any kind of behavior, no matter how outrageous, is not moral. And it is not worthy of respect.
Chris I will not respond to more of your angry crap about Ann Coulter (Or Rush). You have issues with the woman, the fact of which we are all painfully aware. If you wish to disagree with her please do so by making your case rather than asking me to agree with you bto prove you are right.
This is all I need to know regarding this case. It is possible for a single mother to lie, to manipulate, and to engage in political dirty tricks. In order to make a defensive case against what may be a possible false accuser like this woman, who also happens to be a single mother, it is perfectly acceptable to include the single woman “fact” in a list of other facts that could show she’s a woman of low character.
There are many wonderful single mothers.
There are also single mothers who deny their children’s fathers parental rights. There are single mothers that mistreat their children…some have resorted to murder just to be with a boyfriend. There are single mothers who date many men and bear children by them just to get more welfare and benefits. These women are of low character.
Your first statement is constructed poorly for this discussion. You wrote:
“1) The fact that Ginger White is a single mother is evidence that she is of poor character.”
It should read, The fact that Ginger White is a single mother could be evidence that she is of poor character because it isn’t something I believe, or even Ann Coulter believes.
It is simply a possibility. Given the nature of the other items in the list, financially troubled, twice-divorced, unemployed, claimed sexual harassment in the past, declared bankruptcy once, accused of stalking, and had a libel judgment entered against her just this year, there is a distinct possibility that her single mother status also results from poor character and judgement. It could mean she has been a bad mother, a loose woman, an unstable person…just as phone messages could mean that Herman Cain is an adulterer.
If it works for the accuser it also works as a defense of the accused.
You are quite the accuser yourself, Chris, and a little covert since you continually attempt to use me as a hammer to condemn those with whom you hold such visceral animosity.
I do not share your experience of these two people, Rush and Ann Coulter, nor do I agree with your opinion of them. I don’t think you understand what they are saying. Given all of this, agreeing with your assesment of their words would make me a lyer. I get both of them, I get what they do and what they wish to accomplish. I get who they are and I appreciate them…………….you don’t and that is fine with me.
If in your eyes that makes me lesser, so be it. Frankly I couldn’t care less. You don’t get me any more than you do them…I can live with that.
Tina, I am going to ask you a few simple yes or no questions. You can choose whether to answer them or not.
Do you believe it is right to publicly call for the assassination of people just because you disagree with them politically?
Do you believe it is right to use racist and religiously discriminatory stereotypes in order to demean a 17-year old girl, and to advocate for the denial of civil rights to her race and/or religious group?
Do you believe it is right to call widows who lost their husbands in the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history “greedy harpies,” just because you disagree with them politically?
Do you believe it is right to falsely accuse the president and our military of “wiping out” Christians in a foreign country, on one of the most widely listened-to radio shows on the air, when that charge has not a shred of truth to it and when it would have been very easy to find out that this was not the truth?
Do you believe it is right to call a black woman “uppity?”
Do you think it is right to spread unverified tabloid rumors about the first lady, and to report them as fact?
I think if you are honest, you would have to answer all of these questions with a “no.” But because all of these things have been said by people you happen to like, you probably won’t even answer these questions.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out when someone you like says or does something that is clearly wrong. This is a sign of good character and of healthy respect. When you cannot do that, it is a sign of an unhealthy devotion toward the person in question.
And the trap setting continues….
Chris: “Do you believe it is right to publicly call for the assassination of people just because you disagree with them politically?”
NO!
“Do you believe it is right to use racist and religiously discriminatory stereotypes in order to demean a 17-year old girl, and to advocate for the denial of civil rights to her race and/or religious group?”
NO!
“Do you believe it is right to call widows who lost their husbands in the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history “greedy harpies,” just because you disagree with them politically?”
No!
“Do you believe it is right to falsely accuse the president and our military of “wiping out” Christians in a foreign country, on one of the most widely listened-to radio shows on the air, when that charge has not a shred of truth to it and when it would have been very easy to find out that this was not the truth?”
No!
“Do you believe it is right to call a black woman ‘uppity?'”
No!
“Do you think it is right to spread unverified tabloid rumors about the first lady, and to report them as fact?”
No!
It is also not right to spread misinformation about others, something I think you have done in characterizing the things these two people.
I also think a person of good character would take their complaints directly to the person rather than engaging in what amounts to gossip and cserial drive by character assination.
Look in the mirror, Chris. You don’t have even the slightest problem with demeaning Herman Cain using inaccurate information and negative language. Here are some examples:
Sure your language isn’t as outrageous or inflamatory but has the potential to be damaging as people read this blog.
Your comments include slurs, lies, and mischaracterizations of the man’s intelligence and ability to achieve.
As I said to you on another occassion, the game of politics is a rough. People, even you, say a lot of things that aren’t very pleasant or nice.
“Do you believe it is right to publicly call for the assassination of people just because you disagree with them politically?”
NO!
“Do you believe it is right to use racist and religiously discriminatory stereotypes in order to demean a 17-year old girl, and to advocate for the denial of civil rights to her race and/or religious group?”
NO!
“Do you believe it is right to call widows who lost their husbands in the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history “greedy harpies,” just because you disagree with them politically?”
No!
“Do you believe it is right to falsely accuse the president and our military of “wiping out” Christians in a foreign country, on one of the most widely listened-to radio shows on the air, when that charge has not a shred of truth to it and when it would have been very easy to find out that this was not the truth?”
No!
“Do you believe it is right to call a black woman ‘uppity?'”
No!
“Do you think it is right to spread unverified tabloid rumors about the first lady, and to report them as fact?”
No!”
But Tina, your Ms. Coulter makes her living doing all of these things. Why did you refer us to her uncivil and uninformed blather?
Because, Libby dear, I do not consider what Coulter had to say about this blather. If Whites background information is true she was pretty stupid to accuse Cain without having some hard core, damning evidence. Since she did not have damning evidence, the accused deserves some measure of public defense. Ann Coulter, a trained lawyer, provided that defense in her article. None of us knows what that relationship was about…none of us. If I were a juror, at this point in time, I would have to say she doesn’t have a case against him and has done this for some personal reason of her own…money…politics…fame…book/talk show opportunities. Or maybe she’s hoping for an arranged job at Revlon!
I don’t agree with Chris’s assessment of the events from which he cherry picked his list. Some are taken out of context or are without context to add perspective. The retelling in this fashion becomes a lie or mischaracterization.
I think Chris is blind to certain possibilities and I think he gets plugged in to key words or phrases and then looks for instances of rude or sensational language just so he can use them to show “they” are subhuman and he is above reproach. He puts on a good show when an obvious rude remark has been made by someone but when he’s just chatting away he demonstrates that he is just as capable of rude, belittling remarks as anyone else!
I also think he’s wasting one heck of a lot of energy on this silly gotcha game. In future I will not be so willing to indulge him.
Tina, thank you very much for answering my questions. I am glad to see that you do not think that such statements are right; previous comments of yours indicated that you actually didn’t see a problem with any of these statements.
I am a little unsure of why you referred to “trap setting;” my questions were very easy to answer, as you proved by answering them well, so I don’t see how you can characterize them as part of some kind of “trap.”
“It is also not right to spread misinformation about others, something I think you have done in characterizing the things these two people.”
Please show me where I have done so. I do not believe I have “spread misinformation” at all about these two people. I am confident that if you look up the statements in question, you will find that my characterizations of those statements are completely accurate.
“I also think a person of good character would take their complaints directly to the person rather than engaging in what amounts to gossip and cserial drive by character assination.”
First of all, nothing I’ve said is “gossip” or “drive by character assassination,” both things I criticized Coulter and Limbaugh for doing above. It is not gossip to accurately describe what a prominent figure has publicly said, especially when these statements are widely available. Nor is that character assassination.
Second of all, I’m not entirely sure how I can take my complaints directly to Ann Coulter. I’ve tried calling in to Rush Limbaugh before, but I never got through. Regardless, I doubt that an exchange with either of them would be at all productive; I have seen the way they treat people who disagree with them, and it is not pretty.
Even if I could get a chance to speak to Ann Coulter, I am sure nothing I could say to her would make a bit of difference. I am sure that at least at some point in Coulter’s career, someone somewhere has tried to make it clear to her that her words are often hurtful toward others. She clearly doesn’t care; in fact, she seems oddly proud of this fact. I have never seen her apologize for any of the hurtful comments she has made toward 9/11 widows or 17-year-old Muslim girls, or the family members of those killed at Kent State, or the New York Times journalists she said she wished would have been killed in a terrorist attack. And I don’t expect her to ever apologize for those things, or to ever care enough about the feelings of those she has publicly trampled over to feel even a single twinge of guilt.
You, on the other hand? I expect you to respond to reason and compassion, because you, unlike Ann Coulter, are a reasonable and compassionate person. That is why, when you linked to a piece by Ann Coulter, I brought my concerns to you.
“Your comments include slurs, lies, and mischaracterizations of the man’s intelligence and ability to achieve.”
Tina, I don’t think “idiot” is a bad enough word to be considered a “slur.” But it definitely wasn’t nice, and I regret saying it. I should have been able to express myself without making such a personal judgement.
Cain does seem to have a lot of business success, which could be evidence that he has some intelligence. He has achieved a lot. But in the realm of politics, he has demonstrated an astounding level of ignorance on even very simple issues.
The only thing I think you are referring to as a “lie” is when I said that Cain would delegate all of his foreign policy decisions to his advisers. Perhaps he never used the word “delegate,” but he has acknowledged that this is an issue where he will have to at least rely heavily on advisers to make up for his own substantial lack of knowledge. Still, I should have been more technically accurate.
“Ann Coulter, a trained lawyer, provided that defense in her article.”
What do you mean defense? I think attack, and a slanderous one, not an evidence based one.
And this ain’t coming to no jury. Cain has admitted the affair and gone home to face up.
The dude is toast, toasted … done.
I really wouldn’t bring the subject up again, if I were you.
Tina: “I don’t agree with Chris’s assessment of the events from which he cherry picked his list. Some are taken out of context or are without context to add perspective. The retelling in this fashion becomes a lie or mischaracterization.”
Do tell. What have I taken out of context?
“I think Chris is blind to certain possibilities and I think he gets plugged in to key words or phrases and then looks for instances of rude or sensational language”
No. No, no, no, no, no.
First, the idea that one has to “look for” rude or sensational language when dealing with Coulter or Limbaugh is preposterous. Rude and sensational language is their bread and butter.
Second, I differentiate between rude and sensational language, and pure malice. The examples I list go beyond rude and sensational language. Some of them are racist. Some of them are extraordinary lies. Some are instances where one has publicly called for the assassination of those she disagrees with.
“just so he can use them to show “they” are subhuman and he is above reproach.”
Not at all true.
“He puts on a good show when an obvious rude remark has been made by someone but when he’s just chatting away he demonstrates that he is just as capable of rude, belittling remarks as anyone else!”
Again, the remarks I pointed out aren’t just “rude.” They are on a whole other level of unacceptable.
“Cain has admitted the affair and gone home to face up.”
Libby, this appears to be a complete lie. Herman Cain dropped out of the race today, but maintains that the alleged affair never took place. I can’t find anything online saying that he has admitted to having an affair.
If Tina had posted something like this without verifying it, you’d be all over her, and rightfully so. Next time, please verify such information before you post it.
I have mixed feelings on Cain withdrawing from the race. I am glad he is not a part of this presidential campaign anymore; the fact that he was ever seriously considered by so many conservatives dismays me. But I have no satisfaction about the way this played out. Cain should have been considered a no-go because of his ignorance of the constitution, economic policy, foreign policy, and basically every other political issue he’s ever spoken on. Not because of an affair. Regardless, I am glad that we can now move on to discussing more serious candidates, like Newt Gingrich.*
*Congratulations, universe; you have managed to lower my standards to levels I never thought possible.
Libby: “What do you mean defense? I think attack, and a slanderous one, not an evidence based one.”
The rather empty, specious charges against Cain were made in the court of public opinion! It is only appropriate that the defense be in the same court. Ann, a trained lawyer, and one smart cookie, offered a very pointed defense by attacking the weightiness, or should I say lack thereof, of the “evidence” against him.
Your assessment makes me wonder if you even bothered to read her article.
“The dude is toast, toasted … done.”
Yes, he probably is. He has announced a suspension of his candidacy.
Well done left wing radicals. Alinsky rule # 12, I believe, has worked for you once again.
Particularly as a black man, but also because he did have executive experience, Cain was a threat to Obama…or he wouldn’t have been targeted.
Obama’s record is abysmal. He is out now desperately attempting to buy back voters. He has an incredibly poor record, blank page background and experience, and the inability to effectively lead even after nearly three years in office. His solutions have done more harm than good but, I’m fairly certain, this is exactly as was intended. He has a definite picture for America and it has nothing to do with freedom or the constitutional republic.
“I really wouldn’t bring the subject up again, if I were you.”
Gee Libby, thanks for the warning…that’s so sweet! But I have nothing to fear; I am confident and well-grounded.
I will not discuss Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh with you further Chris. I don’t think either one of them would have garnered such wide acceptance and admiration if they were not decent people. I am one who gets what Rush and Ann are attempting to do with sensational and often absurd language. I respect that you disagree.
I have seen how they, like Cainand a lot of other spokesmen for the right, have been targeted and bludgeoned as soon as their stars began to rise. Like it or not, agree or not, the record of inflamatory language and death by a thousand cuts that eminates from the radicals in your party is relentless, decades old, and many times more contemptable. We cannot fight for our right to be heard, seek equal justice in the public eye, or defend ourselves from the onslaught by being well-mannered shrinking violets. It would be akin to taking a frisbee to a street fight.
There are times when inflammatory language is appropriate and necessary; there are times when inflamatory language follows well placed salvos.
Absurdity…look it up. If it looks like a duck….ah well, you prefer to just take great offense rather than looking nbeyond the absurdity…go for it! Knock yourself out. I don’t expect you to change your mind. I do expect you to quit acting like everyone elses mother at some point in your life.
When I posted the link to Coulters piece I knew I was asking for a response from you. I wish you had been willing to stick to the subject at hand…the accusations waged toward Cain and the somewhat meager defense of Cain. Apparently any suggestion of foul play is not acceptable.
I will not let your obsession stop me from posting Coulter again if I find it appropriate bad news for Libby who would have me “learn my lesson!” (another mothering spirit run amok)
RE: “the fact that he was ever seriously considered by so many conservatives dismays me…Cain should have been considered a no-go because of his ignorance of the constitution, economic policy, foreign policy, and basically every other political issue he’s ever spoken on.”
So, you agree that Obama should never have been considered for the presidency due to his thin knowlege of the *Constitution, lack of knowledge on foreign affairs, lack of practical experience, lack of executive experience, lack of accomplishment while serving in both state and federal legislatures, poor management of funds granted to him to improve an appartment building in Chicago, and lack of disclosure regarding his school records, not to mention the vacuous nature of his campaign and a few questionable associations?
* Don’t bother objecting by telling me that Obama studied the Constitution, has a law degree, and taught a couple of classes. My assertion is not pulled from thin air but from opinions expressed by Hugh Hewitt, a professor and talk show host who teaches the Constitution at Chapman University Law School.
Whether or not Cain was involved with Ms. White, the woman came out initially making it appear that she had a 13 year old relationship, not the numerous years she alleged of a “casual” on and off relationship we later found out about. Additionally, Ms. White found an opportunity to possibly make money to help her in her financial situation-how else would you explain taking every opportunity to discuss details of her affair on tv shows, in interviews with reporters, etc. I am just glad we don’t have to hear any more details of her alleged affair anymore. Since Cain is no longer in the race, there really will be little national interest in hearing more about her alleged affair and details.
Tina: “I will not discuss Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh with you further Chris.”
Tina, I would accept this had you not accused me of taking some of their remarks out of context. You shouldn’t make a claim like that, with no evidence, and then just back out of the discussion. That’s a cop-out. Please either explain how this charge against me is accurate, or take it back.
“I don’t think either one of them would have garnered such wide acceptance and admiration if they were not decent people.”
Right, because no one has ever become famous and gained admiration who was not a decent person. If you honestly believe this, you are very naive.
“I am one who gets what Rush and Ann are attempting to do with sensational and often absurd language. I respect that you disagree.”
Once again, there is a big difference between “sensational and absurd language,” and calling the grieving widows of 9/11 victims “greedy harpies” who are “enjoying their husband’s deaths!” There’s a difference between sensational and absurd language and telling an already hurt and upset 17-year old Arab Muslim girl to “take a camel” instead of traveling by airplane, meaning that the girl should not enjoy the same rights as other U.S. citizens solely because of her race and religion. There is a difference between absurd and sensational language and lying on the air about our president and our military “wiping out Christians” in Uganda, while listing out positive-sounding goals of the brutal gang of mass murderers, child rapists and torturers whom our military was sent to help fight! He essentially sided with an enemy of the United States over our president and military, and you seem to have no problem with that whatsoever.
You may not want to continue discussing such statements because you know there is no adequate defense for them. They are prima facie wrong. You could just admit that, and say that you still support Coulter and Limbaugh even though you recognize that they were way over the line in saying these things. But you can’t seem to admit what you must know is true.
Or maybe, contrary to what you said above, you don’t know that these statements are true. In which case, your sense of morality is very skewed.
The third possibility is your claim that I have taken these statements out of context. But I haven’t, and you haven’t shown any evidence that I have.
“There are times when inflammatory language is appropriate and necessary; there are times when inflamatory language follows well placed salvos.”
Even if that is true, NONE of the statements I mentioned were made at the “appropriate” time, or were directed at the appropriate targets.
“Absurdity…look it up. If it looks like a duck….ah well, you prefer to just take great offense rather than looking nbeyond the absurdity…go for it! Knock yourself out. I don’t expect you to change your mind. I do expect you to quit acting like everyone elses mother at some point in your life.”
I am not acting like anyone’s “mother.” You frequently call into question the morality of others…but you have no comment about the immoral statements made by people on your side. That is hypocrisy.
“Don’t bother objecting by telling me that Obama studied the Constitution, has a law degree, and taught a couple of classes. My assertion is not pulled from thin air but from opinions expressed by Hugh Hewitt, a professor and talk show host who teaches the Constitution at Chapman University Law School.”
I don’t care who your opinions are “pulled from,” especially if they are pulled from a partisan hack like Hugh Hewitt. Your assessment of the president is wrong. He never showed as much constitutional ignorance as Cain did, with his total disregard for religious freedom. (Cain seems to have since tried to educate himself on this issue, which is admirable, but his previous ignorance on religious freedom was still a disqualifying offense.) Obama also served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee and visited many countries as part of his duties there. It is true that Obama was relatively inexperienced compared to some other candidates, but certainly not compared to Cain.
Chris: “You shouldn’t make a claim like that, with no evidence, and then just back out of the discussion. That’s a cop-out.”
It isn’t a cop out we have had this discussion before. I have no interest in going through it again with you.
“You may not want to continue discussing such statements because you know there is no adequate defense for them.”
Or because it is boring since you and I will never agree.
” You could just admit that, and say that you still support Coulter and Limbaugh even though you recognize that they were way over the line in saying these things.”
I have said that in my own way…you refuse to accept it and let it go. There is more to the story in each of these instances but you have no interest in that. You are a niggler. Fine! As I said, go for it!
“You frequently call into question the morality of others…”
I call into question the behavior of others or the general decline of morality in our society.
“…but you have no comment about the immoral statements made by people on your side”
That is not true, Chris. I have commented. I don’t make a career out of it.
“You may not want to continue discussing such statements because you know there is no adequate defense for them.”
Or because we’ve been through it before and it is boring and stupid to simply rehash what has already been said.
“You could just admit that, and say that you still support Coulter and Limbaugh even though you recognize that they were way over the line in saying these things. But you can’t seem to admit what you must know is true.”
I’m satisfied with what I have said.
” NONE of the statements I mentioned were made at the “appropriate” time…”
Says you! I don’t march to your drum. I have another perspetive! I get to do that (at least for now) in this country.
“or were directed at the appropriate targets.’
Once again, says you.
“I am not acting like anyone’s ‘mother”.”
Okay. Got it. You don’t think you are acting like anyone’s mother.
“you have no comment about the immoral statements made by people on your side.”
That is a lie but you have a right to say it.
“…especially if they are pulled from a partisan hack like Hugh Hewitt.”
Oh, I see. Because he sits on the conservative side of the leger, even though he is a long time Constitutional professor, he is dismissed on the subject of the Constitution as partisan, and a “hack” to boot?
I can see how from your perspective it makes sense to see it that way. The question is, was he right?
Here’s a video that shows in Obama’s own words what he thinks of the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded
“It is true that Obama was relatively inexperienced compared to some other candidates, but certainly not compared to Cain.”
Obama is called brilliant but will not release his school records so his so-called “brilliance can not be varified. Obama has no remarkable record of achievement. His record in both state and federal legislatures is a vote of present or absent in most instances. I think he voted on an abortion bill in Illinois. Obama was and is a trainer…a community organizer bent on fundamentally transforming America. ALL of the candidates on our side are iminently more qualified to be president and for those who value freedom much more approriate to hold the office.
Not that it matters anymore, Alinsky rule #12 has done it’s work, but Cain’s resume shows a man of incredible achievement and leadership abilities:
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/40345
I just woke up from a nap and was in the process of rubbing my eyes as I read your comments and I thought you called Chris the N word…had to read it several times, before I realized the word was ni-g-g-ler..whew, thought Chris had finally caused you to go off the deep end! Good thing you didn’t call him “uppity” in the same sentence. Betcha Chris would have stroked out right along with me.
Ahhhh…thanks Jack. I’m now back to the incredible lightness of being. A comment with a sense of humor imbedded in it was just what I needed to be at peace once again.
Hope you didn’t ruin your new eye! I suppose tomorrow morning will find Pie spewing coffee, lol.
Tina: “”or were directed at the appropriate targets.’
Once again, says you.”
A seventeen-year-old girl is an appropriate target? 9/11 widows are appropriate targets? Our military is an appropriate target for false claims that they are “wiping out Christians?”
Is ANYONE an appropriate target for wishes of assassination, or reporting false tabloid rumors as fact, or racist epithets?
“Oh, I see. Because he sits on the conservative side of the leger, even though he is a long time Constitutional professor, he is dismissed on the subject of the Constitution as partisan, and a “hack” to boot?”
No, that is not why. You know that I do not dismiss people in this way just because they are conservative.
“I can see how from your perspective it makes sense to see it that way. The question is, was he right?”
The answer is no.
“Here’s a video that shows in Obama’s own words what he thinks of the Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded”
Nothing Obama says there is any more radical than what Martin Luther King, Jr. used to advocate. He also favored redistribution of wealth and economic justice for African-Americans.
You can still disagree with these policies, but know who you’re disagreeing with. You can’t just dismiss the ideas he shares in that video as completely illegitimate; they are ideas gained directly from the Civil Rights movement (like the idea of civil disobedience, which you also previously disrespected).
“I think he voted on an abortion bill in Illinois.”
LOL, yes, and that is the only thing he ever voted on ever.
Obama’s record of accomplishments in the Senate is easily accessible; heck, just go to his Wikipedia page.
I do think he should release his school records but there are other, more important ways to verify his intelligence than that.
Chris: “A seventeen-year-old girl is an appropriate target? 9/11 widows are appropriate targets?”
The seventeen year old is a college student so her age does not really matter. She has entered the adult world, she put herself in the room and she stood to ask the question. I don’t see her as a victim but as a participant. I think she showed herself capable to stand and hold her own. Making her a victim serves your purpose in support of the victim class. The 911 widows are likewise adult women capable of holding their own in the volatile arena of politics where words are not always wrapped up in pretty bows but can become sharp as knives.
“Our military is an appropriate target for false claims that they are “wiping out Christians?”
Which was acknowledged as incorrect information and dropped! Except by you, of course.
“Is ANYONE an appropriate target for wishes of assassination, or reporting false tabloid rumors as fact, or racist epithets?”
Oh please. I kniow you are aware of the things the left has said about Coulter, Limbaugh, the Tea Party, conservatives…CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!! I know I told you that Coulter had to hire body guards because of threats she received. Long before Limbaugh had reached this level of scrutiny and success a webpage was devoted to a photo of Limbaugh morphing to a bloody pulp as if he was being beaten.
As I said, I don’t dwell on these things because they happen in political discussion. I bring this type of thing up only to demonstrate that it isn’t something that only happens on the right…which, when the MSM was the only information source was succesfuly floated as truth.
“No, that is not why. You know that I do not dismiss people in this way just because they are conservative.”
So why is Hewitt just a “partisan hack” in your estimation?
“The answer is no.”
And you know he’s not right because you are more qualified than the “partisan hack” Constitutional professor to say so! Sorry, I don’t buy it.
“Nothing Obama says there is any more radical than what Martin Luther King, Jr. used to advocate. He also favored redistribution of wealth and economic justice for African-Americans.”
FAvoring it is one thing. Suggesting we use the courts to undermine the Constitution and transform it is quite another!
“…they are ideas gained directly from the Civil Rights movement…”
They are ideas gained directly from the Marxist arm of the Civil Rights movement. Not everyone who fought for civil rights was part of the Marxist minority.
“(like the idea of civil disobedience, which you also previously disrespected).”
I disrespect civil disobedience that tramples all over the rights of fellow citizens and creates a health risk and dangerous environment. I direspect civil disobedience that doesn’t respect the process for holding a public protest. I disrespect those who ask others to pay for their civil disobedience.
“LOL, yes, and that is the only thing he ever voted on ever.”
“LOL” over legislation to prevent late term abortion…nice!
“Obama’s record of accomplishments in the Senate is easily accessible; heck, just go to his Wikipedia page.”
Heck…you don’t find anything that makes him a better candidate than any republican running today…just as I said.
“but there are other, more important ways to verify his intelligence than that.’
Such as?
Tina: “The seventeen year old is a college student so her age does not really matter.”
I disagree, but only slightly. Coulter’s remark would have still been offensive, racist, religiously discriminatory, and cruel even if it were directed at someone older than 18; but I think the fact that the girl identified herself as a legal minor makes Coulter’s insult marginally worse.
“She has entered the adult world, she put herself in the room and she stood to ask the question. I don’t see her as a victim but as a participant. I think she showed herself capable to stand and hold her own.”
I agree that the girl showed a great deal of capability and courage.
“Making her a victim serves your purpose in support of the victim class.”
I didn’t use the word “victim,” however, if Ann Coulter had her way the girl would be a victim of having her civil rights taken away. In the remarks of Coulter’s that the girl was responding to, Coulter suggested that Muslims and Arabs should not be allowed to travel by air, like ordinary Americans. If this policy were implemented, not only the girl in question but her entire race as well as her entire religion would be, by definition, victims of an oppressive government regime.
“The 911 widows are likewise adult women capable of holding their own in the volatile arena of politics where words are not always wrapped up in pretty bows but can become sharp as knives.”
So you do think that 9/11 widows are appropriate political targets? Frankly, that disgusts me, Tina.
“Which was acknowledged as incorrect information and dropped! Except by you, of course.”
This is false, Tina. Rush Limbaugh never acknowledged that his remarks were incorrect. Not once.
He did say, at the end of the broadcast, that he had just heard about “accusations” against the Lord’s Resistance Army. He never took a position on whether the accusations were true, but promised to do his “due diligence” in following this story. THEN he dropped it, totally breaking his “due diligence” promise, without ever issuing a correction or an apology.
Why should everyone else drop the subject when Limbaugh made a ludicrously false, practically seditious charge against our military and president, and never corrected the false charge he put out?
“Oh please. I kniow you are aware of the things the left has said about Coulter, Limbaugh, the Tea Party, conservatives…CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!”
Please show me a prominent liberal who has publicly called for the assassinations of any of these people.
And if you can, I will, without hesitation, say that the liberal in question was wrong to do so, and should not be listened to.
Heck, I’ve commented before on how much I hate the sexist and transphobic “Mann Coulter” jokes. Just because she says awful things does not mean that this kind of treatment directed at her is acceptable.
That’s because I hold everyone to the same standard.
“I know I told you that Coulter had to hire body guards because of threats she received. Long before Limbaugh had reached this level of scrutiny and success a webpage was devoted to a photo of Limbaugh morphing to a bloody pulp as if he was being beaten.”
And, of course, those threats were wrong.
You act as if Coulter and Limbaugh are justified in wishing for the assassination of others, because others have called for their assassination.
That’s moral relativism, something which you have claimed to be against.
“As I said, I don’t dwell on these things because they happen in political discussion. I bring this type of thing up only to demonstrate that it isn’t something that only happens on the right…”
I didn’t say it only happened on the right. But a big difference I’ve seen is that the left is, in general, more likely to call out these things as wrong when it does happen on our side. This debate between you and I is one example of that trend.
“So why is Hewitt just a “partisan hack” in your estimation?”
I’m not going to get into that now; I’ve said enough about Limbaugh and Coulter, I’m not going to bring another right-wing commentator into the discussion.
“And you know he’s not right because you are more qualified than the “partisan hack” Constitutional professor to say so! Sorry, I don’t buy it.”
Tina, as you pointed out, President Obama was a constitutional professor as well. If you’re going to commit the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority, you could at least do so in a way that doesn’t smack of hypocrisy.
“FAvoring it is one thing. Suggesting we use the courts to undermine the Constitution and transform it is quite another!”
This is just nonsense. Of course King also advocated using the courts to enact retributive and economic justice. You are making a distinction without a difference, and then framing a position endorsed by both the president and Martin Luther King as an effort to “undermine the Constitution and transform it.”
“They are ideas gained directly from the Marxist arm of the Civil Rights movement. Not everyone who fought for civil rights was part of the Marxist minority.”
But by your logic, MLK was part of the “Marxist arm.” Those are HIS IDEAS you are talking about. You can’t keep side-stepping that fact.
You can still argue that those ideas are wrong, or even Marxist. After all, MLK did say that he got some ideas from Karl Marx, even though he disagreed with a lot of Marx’s ideas as well.
My problem is that you apparently don’t know any of this. As someone who lived through the Civil Rights movement and runs a blog about politics, you should know this stuff, and you should be able to make an argument against these ideas without speaking as if MLK was some kind of radical commie.
Again, disagree with MLK all you want. I am even on the fence regarding some of his positions, like affirmative action. But I don’t act like these positions are entirely illegitimate or anti-American.
“I disrespect civil disobedience that tramples all over the rights of fellow citizens and creates a health risk and dangerous environment. I direspect civil disobedience that doesn’t respect the process for holding a public protest. I disrespect those who ask others to pay for their civil disobedience.”
OK…now do you want to tell me which forms of civil disobedience you DO respect?
I ask because civil disobedience was at the core of the entire Civil Rights movement, employed by heroes such as Rosa Parks, MLK, and even Gandhi. Previous comments of yours indicated that you are against ALL forms of civil disobedience. I hope that’s not true, because if it is, that means you think Rosa Parks should have just moved to the back of the bus, and that a police officer would have had every right to pepper spray her in the face if she refused to do so.
I am sure you don’t believe that; but your previous comments about civil disobedience indicate that you do.
“”LOL” over legislation to prevent late term abortion…nice!”
I “LOL”ed over the fact that you were only able to name one single issue that Senator Obama voted on during his entire career. That was laughable.
“Such as?”
Such as his entire political career.
Chris: “I didn’t use the word “victim…”
You didn’t have to…she has become your baby duck!
“if Ann Coulter had her way the girl would be a victim of having her civil rights taken away”
And what of the rights of little old ladies from Florida who require walkers just to get around being strip searched or babies being frightened by strangers touching their bodies?
What do you know about this girl? Does she represent any particular group or organization? Do you have any idea why she attended this event or why she was asking the questions she asked?
Let’s inject some much needed perspective!
http://pjmedia.com/blog/coulter-and-the-camel/
“Why should everyone else drop the subject…”
Who is everyone else? You’re the only one here who keeps harping on this.
“Please show me a prominent liberal who has publicly called for the assassinations of any of these people.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091013114435AA7mEeA
(Video available by link)
Big yuks all around. The difference is there is no underlying point to be made…just pure delight at the thought of Rush’s head exploding after having a C02 pellet jammed into his head. Whether you agree with Coulters position and the way she uses acerbic humot to make her point or not you have to agree that at least she has a point to make. A serious point that she has to try to cut through the PC BS to make, not to mention the booing, the vegetable throwing, the total discourteousness of those who disagree.
“…a big difference I’ve seen is that the left is, in general, more likely to call out these things as wrong when it does happen on our side.”
More Bologna!
“President Obama was a constitutional professor as well.”
Professor is stretching it…he taught a few classes.
“Tina: “Suggesting we use the courts to undermine the Constitution and transform it is quite another!” and then Chris: “This is just nonsense. Of course King…”
I was referring to Obama in the video; a link was provided.
“But by your logic, MLK was part of the “Marxist arm.”
There is evidence to support that:
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1030
“My problem is that you apparently don’t know any of this.”
Apparently there are things you do not know!
“now do you want to tell me which forms of civil disobedience you DO respect?”
I told you, I have no problem with peaceful, respectful protest. Civil disobedience, on the other hand, I do not respect in a country that offers freedom and many avenues to express ones opinion, influence others, and vote. Using public parks as toilets and rape rooms, using precious civic resources at public expense to throw what has amounted to a temper tantrum will never gain my respect.
“Rosa Parks, MLK, and even Gandhi”
None of these urinated or defacated outside or fornicated in public to my knowledge. I believbe they conducted themselves with dignity as part of their protest.
“Previous comments of yours indicated that you are against ALL forms of civil disobedience. I hope that’s not true, because if it is, that means you think Rosa Parks should have just moved to the back of the bus, and that a police officer would have had every right to pepper spray her in the face if she refused to do so.”
And previous comments from you would indicate that youn think the OWSers have anything close to what Rosa parks endured to “overcome”. Absurd!
Obamas “entire political career” is unremarkable except for his his extraordinary ability to fool a lot of people and bypass the democratic process laid out in the Constitution to get things done. His biggest political accomplishment may have been his mastery of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.
“And previous comments from you would indicate that youn think the OWSers have anything close to what Rosa parks endured to “overcome”. Absurd!”
Really. I think even you have admitted (by denigrating) the fact that large numbers of OWSers have taken up the cause because they have no jobs and no home … and from you, no respect.
Rosa had a job and a home … but no respect. Which would seem to put the OWSers two up.
Open your eyes, girl.
“Yes, he probably is. He has announced a suspension of his candidacy.
Well done left wing radicals.”
No, Tina … any thoroughly libertarian journalism student could have wrought the man’s downfall … by turning up just one … or two … or four facts.
But you just go on and console yourself … howsoever.
Libby: “I think even you have admitted (by denigrating) the fact that large numbers of OWSers have taken up the cause because they have no jobs and no home…”
I don’t recall but in any case any self-respecting person in that position would quickly distance himself from an organization that doesn’t mind having rapists, thieves, defacators, drug users and dealers, and other questionable characters among them over a period of months. Any self-respecting person would not wish his protest to cost others of the so-called 99$ their businesses or the cities upward of $13 million for security and clean up. Any self respecting person would be looking for work or volunteering their time to a worthy cause. Rosa parks made her dignified and pointed protest on her way to or from work…and she didn’t poop on the bus!
“turning up just one … or two … or four facts.”
Facts? Hmm…how to prove you didn’t do something!
How about vague charges of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual or conversations filled with inuendo…like that doesn’t happen every day of the week!
Nope facts don’t really enter the picture so far. There is no blue dress, no books, cards, letters. Even the phone messages were discovered to be return calls from Cain when one woman called to ask him for help…money. The remainder were from the Cain campaign asking for a donation to the campaign.
But you go on ahead and spin it Libby…howsoever!
The circus…..goes on and on and on. And the guy who is twice divorced and had an extra-marital affair with his current wife hopes to gain the most from this. AMAZING!! More than ever, as I look at the sorry set of Republican rivals on the other side, I am THANKFUL to have Barack Obama as President, and as a viable candidate for re-election. Mr. Obama: your heart, your values, and your basic decency are all in the right place. BUT…your hands are tied. Unfortunately they were tied by us, the electorate…..when we failed to provide you with a Congress that you can work with. Instead, you are saddled with a dont-tax-the-1%-do-nothing Congress that battles you at every turn, while the people suffer.God, they don’t EVEN let you pass your own appointments. It’s not Tea-publican gridlock -it’s Tea-publican sabotage. Heck, it’s Tea-publican treason….while the 99% BLEEDS. And then they try to pin the blame on Mr. Obama. These people have no shame…or else its been purchased by those who can afford to do so. In her last years, Grandma gets her meager Social Security check, and they DARE to call it socialism. Give me a break! (and Grandma too!) Thankfully, with Occupy Wall Street, America has found its voice: a voice that reminds us that people -ordinary down-to-earth working people- really DO matter. Not corporations are people -people , but REAL people! Tea-publicans want even MORE 1%-tax-break-corporate-loopholes….while these job-creators send our jobs overseas, and wish that wed go away too…. as they buy every politician in sight. And if these politicians dont have ENOUGH mistresses, I can hook them up with a few gorgeous -and rich!- oil companies. It would be a perfect blind date, except for the fact that theyre ALREADY in bed with them :-). But instead of talking about LESS government, and LESS taxes on the 1%, and MORE corporate welfare, and MORE painful cuts to those who can LEAST afford it….Occupy is a voice that demands a government that WORKS, a government that works FOR ALL OF US, not just for a favored few….not just for the rich. Its a voice that comes up from the grassroots, and lifts us up in turn: because it insists that this land IS our land…and that we WANT IT BACK! It’s a voice that will help us re-elect the President AND give him a more progressive people-oriented Congress to work with. Mr. Obama: I wish you well…. because you STILL give us hope!
Tina: “And what of the rights of little old ladies from Florida who require walkers just to get around being strip searched or babies being frightened by strangers touching their bodies?”
I oppose those measures too, Tina.
“What do you know about this girl? Does she represent any particular group or organization? Do you have any idea why she attended this event or why she was asking the questions she asked?”
A better, slightly more relevant question would be what Ann Coulter knew about this girl when she chose to insult her using racist and religious stereotypes. And even that isn’t all that relevant, because it would still be wrong.
The excuses offered by Pajama’s Media are laughably weak. Even if one believes that Fatima’s membership in the Facebook group “It’s Called Palestine, Not Israel!!!” reflects negatively upon her, that still does not justify Coulter’s remark. In order to do that, one would have to believe that Coulter knew about this aspect of the girls’ life before insulting her, which is highly unlikely. If you purposely trip someone and they fall down, and later you find out that the person you tripped was a serial killer, your initial act of tripping them is not retroactively justified. Fatima could be guilty of a lot of things, but for all Coulter knew, her only crime was to criticize a racist and religiously discriminatory statement made by Ann Coulter. The fact that it was later discovered that Fatima has associations you don’t like does not retroactively make Coulter’s racist insult OK.
And even in the unlikely event that Coulter did know about Fatima’s membership in that Facebook group at the time–and by the way, I’m skeptical about the charge that it calls for “the destruction of Israel,” since this charge is often leveled by conservatives against any group which is even mildly critical of Israel’s occupation of Palestine–that STILL would not justify her invocation of racist and religiously discriminatory stereotypes. When you use those against a person, even a particularly nasty person, you are not just insulting them. You are insulting every single member of their race and religion.
That’s why I also criticize the use of sexist and transphobic slurs against Coulter. Such language doesn’t just hit the target, it hits all women and all transgendered people.
From the link: “Coulter has suggested, with her characteristic brashness, that Muslims be banned from commercial flights and rely on flying carpets instead.”
Gee, who could be offended by that?
“I believe the only one who should feel slighted is the camel,”
Wow. Is this really the kind of rhetoric that you find convincing, Tina? The kind that thinks its witty and sharp to say that a camel’s feelings are worth more than this human being’s, because she happens to be a Muslim?
PJ Media is trying to justify Coulter’s racism with even more racism.
“Who is everyone else? You’re the only one here who keeps harping on this.”
I didn’t just mean on this blog, I meant Rush’s many critics in general.
You ignored the larger point. You made a false claim when you stated that Rush Limbaugh “acknowledged” the “incorrect information.”
Whenever I accidentally make a false claim here, I always admit my error and apologize.
Since you are one of the managers of this blog, I expect you to show the same level of responsibility whenever you make such an error.
I also expect the same level of responsibility from Rush Limbaugh, who reaches thousands of people each day, and whose false allegations about our involvement in Uganda prompted Sen. James Inhofe (R) to correct the record on the Senate floor, due to all the calls he received from misinformed Limbaugh listeners who demanded to know why our president had ordered to military to “wipe out Christians” in Uganda.
“CHRIS MATTHEWS:…”
What Chris Matthews said there was horrendous and wrong. He should have been fired for it.
Jesus Christ, that was easy to do!
I still can’t figure out why you can’t bring yourself to admit the same thing about people on your side.
“Big yuks all around. The difference is there is no underlying point to be made…”
So racism and calls for assassination are fine and dandy as long as you’re making an “underlying point?” Please.
You wanna know what one difference is? Well, for one, I’ve never in my entire life heard a liberal say, “Man, that Chris Matthews is awesome.” I can’t stand the guy, and I don’t think he deserves to be in a position of any influence. Most liberals I know agree with me.
“More Bologna!”
But you’re proving exactly what I said right now. You continue to refuse to call out people on your side even when they say things which you know are wrong. I don’t have that problem.
“Professor is stretching it…he taught a few classes.”
Hey, I’m not the one who made an appeal to authority.
“I was referring to Obama in the video; a link was provided.”
I know. I watched it. And I pointed out that nothing he said there is any more radical than what King used to advocate.
You then tried to draw an imaginary line between “favoring” certain policies and “using the courts” to enact those policies…totally ignoring that King, like Obama, favored using the courts to enact such policies.
“There is evidence to support that:”
OK, so let’s say for a moment that MLK might have been a member of the “Marxist arm” of the Civil Rights Movement.
Where do you go from there?
You have frequently used the term “Marxist” in attempts to de-legitimize the opinions of others. You use it as a synonym for anti-Americanism. You believe it totally violates the principles of the Constitution.
Yet MLK represented, and still represents, the mainstream of the Civil Rights movement. He is the movement’s face. A national and international hero, a champion of freedom of justice.
If you concede all this, and also believe that MLK might represent the Marxist arm of the Civil Rights Movement, then you have to believe that the entire Civil Rights Movement might have been Marxist at its very core.
So what is an anti-Marxist but pro-Civil Rights person to do? Well, you can maybe conclude that Marxism, in some form, isn’t actually all that bad. Or you can say that the Civil Rights movement wasn’t actually all that good.
Or maybe, just maybe, you can admit that since at least 2008 you have been using the word “Marxist” wrong, and you should do a bit more research on the term and the people you apply it too before using it again.
What you should not do is simply link to a video wherein President Obama expresses ideas lifted directly from the good Dr. King, and essentially say, “See! I told you! Obama doesn’t like the Constitution!” Because there is a long history of people who disagree with you on whether these issues are Constitutional or not, and many of those people, like Dr. King, are objectively awesome. Again, you can disagree–lots of people do!–but to dismiss these ideas outright is very disrespectful to the legacy of the Civil Rights movement.
“I told you, I have no problem with peaceful, respectful protest. Civil disobedience, on the other hand, I do not respect”
Civil disobedience is often peaceful, respectful protest.
I’ll ask again: Do you or do you not believe that Rosa Parks was right to use civil disobedience when she refused to move to the back of the bus? Do you believe civil rights protesters were right to sit at segregated lunch counters in direct violation of police authority? You can’t keep ignoring this question, especially when you keep implying that you don’t think this was right. You keep saying that civil disobedience is wrong, and you’re not qualifying that at all. That is incredibly disrespectful to the Civil Rights movement.
“None of these urinated or defacated outside or fornicated in public to my knowledge.”
The vast majority of the Occupy Wall Street protesters haven’t done this either, and were disgusted by the people that did. None of the UC Davis protesters did anything like this, yet you had no problem with a university police officer using an excessive amount of force in direct violation of the university’s policy on the proper use of pepper spray.
Got that? The officer broke the rules. The students did not. And yet you sided with the officer.
Most people were shocked at the display of force shown by that officer, Tina. Ask yourself why you did not react in the same way that came naturally to most of those who watched the incident on the news.
“And previous comments from you would indicate that youn think the OWSers have anything close to what Rosa parks endured to “overcome”. Absurd!”
I don’t think that, and I haven’t indicated that. Invoking previous generations of activists to support the actions of today’s activists is not the same as drawing an equivalency between the suffering of each.
Thanks for offering you perspective Stan.
Unfortunately the information you try to sell is full of liberal spin. Translation? “BS”
You wrote: “Instead, you are saddled with a dont-tax-the-1%-do-nothing Congress that battles you at every turn, while the people suffer.”
Placing higher taxes on business and the wealthy won’t help the 99%. Our business tax rates are the highest in the world. Making them higher won’t inspire risk taking, hiring, or expansion. Taxing the wealthy as individuals at a higher rate won’t help either…it wouldn’t pay the interest on our massive debt and it wouldn’t inspire risk taking, job creation or expansion!
The Congress republicans are not the do-nothings. Obama is deliberately refusing to negotiate and has not submitted a scorable budget in the last two years, which he is required to do. Instead he makes speeches full of cute phrases like, “All options are on the table”…and fools like you you buy it.
The man is not a leader he is a campaigner. He doesn’t solve problems he offers you empty platitudes…hope, for instance. He does know how to accept very large campaign donations for himself from the 1%. (And you thought he was in your camp.)
Republicans in the House have passed budgets and legislation which Obama and the democrats deemed dead on arrival. “While the people suffer” Obama and the democrats play politics!
“they don’t EVEN let you pass your own appointments”
Oh poor baby. Like no other president, democrat or republican, EVER had his appointments rejected. Grow up dude this is the process for all appointments. He has to find one that will pass.
“And then they try to pin the blame on Mr. Obama.”
Obama has been the president for almost three years. He had a super majority in Congress for two of those years. (That means he didn’t need a single republican vote to pass whatever legislation or appointment he wanted) He has been in control of “recovery” policies all of this time and our economy remains stagnant and unemployment high…why should he not be held responsible? His policies have not worked. His policies do not inspire confidence or investment. He refuses to take advice, even from the committee he originated!
“In her last years, Grandma gets her meager Social Security check, and they DARE to call it socialism.
Social security is a social program. It is also unsustainable. It has to be fixed! Politicians and advisors from both sides of the aisle have said it needs to be reformed. NO REPUBLICAN HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT GRANDMA SHOULD LOSE HER SS CHECK!!!!! Republicans have been willing to propose reforms to SS that would allow grandma to continue to get her checks while future generations would invest a portion of their SS investment into private accounts that they could pass on to their children if they die before they use it all. Instead of working with Republicans to fix the SS problem, Democrats make stupid lying commercials to BUY your VOTE…and you are foolish enough to buy it! Meanwhile the problem will keep getting worse as the very large baby boomer segment of our society begins to crow the SS rolls.
Oh, and by the way, Obama’s health care bill does take money away from Medicare and Obama refused SS cost of living increases for the past two years ignoring the higher food and energy prices that HURT GRANDMA when she doesn’t get a bigger check to compensate for inflation.
“Tea-publicans want even MORE 1%-tax-break-corporate-loopholes”
Another lie. Republicans have proposed ending loopholes in their tax reform proposals!
“while these job-creators send our jobs overseas”
Jobs go overseas because other countries offer them a better environment to do business; lower taxes and less regulation being two of the biggest incentives.
As a worker if someone offered you $40.00 an hour and someone else offered you $60,00 an hour are you trying to say that you would take the forty thousand just to be nice? Fagetaboudit! You’de take the sixty in a heart beat. YOU would do what was in your own best interests! Companies are no different. You need profits from your labors that help you to pay your bills. Companies need profits to fund operations going forward, including expansion and hiring.
“…and wish that wed go away too…. as they buy every politician in sight”
We wish you would spend less time spouting crap and more time doing some reading. You don’t have a clue! (Here’s one…SOLYNDRA)
Obama is out buying votes with every word that falls out of that smooth mouth! And he’s fundraising from the elite of the elites (not the hard working) 1% both in Hollywood and on Wall Street:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/23/business/la-fi-0723-obama-donations-20110723
Among big fundraisers, Obama’s reelection campaign has drawn close to a third of his money from the industry, up from 20% during his 2008 campaign, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/obama-celebrity-donors_n_919890.html
Obama is in bed with them. You can’t have it both ways.
“Occupy is a voice that demands a government that WORKS, a government that works FOR ALL OF US, not just for a favored few….not just for the rich.”
And what do the 99% propose that would work? What do they suggest other than tax the rich? It will takes a lot more than an emotional, politically expediant, tax gimmick to make things work for all of us. Instead of picking winners and losers Obama has SPENT MONEY AND CREATED MASSIVE DEBT for temporary bandaids that buys HIM votes and fixes NOTHING!
“Its a voice that comes up from the grassroots, and lifts us up in turn: because it insists that this land IS our land…and that we WANT IT BACK!”
It’s a temper tantrum that accomplishes nothing BUT SERVES AS A GREAT DISTRACTION TO THE UTTER FAILURE OF OBAMA’S ECONOMIC MESS!
I understand the anger and frustration but man, you don’t have the facts and if you really want to see things get better for those without a lot of money you better start to figure out what is really going on and which of our elected officials are willing to work toward turning our economy around and reforming programs that we, YOU, can’t pay for without accumulating massive debt for future generations. Simply educating yourself would make a difference.
“It’s a voice that will help us re-elect the President AND give him a more progressive people-oriented Congress to work with.”
Progressives aren’t people oriented…they are control oriented! They are big expensive government oriented! They are big business executive donater oriented! They feed the rest of us meager crumbs, keeping folks like you locked into the big government welfare system model while they enrich themselves. They dumb down kids in failing schools where money is spent on the bureaucracy rather than the classroom. the hope they offer is empty and void of real compassion.
“Mr. Obama: I wish you well…. because you STILL give us hope!”
When was the last time anyone fed their bellies on hope?
stan chaz, other then your hyperbolic charge of “treason” against Republicans, which I frankly don’t find productive, I agree with pretty much everything else you wrote. It’s always good to have another passionate progressive voice in these parts.
Word of advice if you plan on sticking around (and I hope you do): Tina and Jack, like most conservatives, are good people with bad ideas. Please treat them as such. If you take issue with anything they write, which you will, try to do so as respectfully and civilly as humanly possible. This has worked well for me, but it isn’t always practiced by some of the others here, both liberal and conservative.
Tina: “Obama…has not submitted a scorable budget in the last two years,”
This is false.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-friends-anchor-falsely-reports-that-president-obama-did-not-submit-a-budget/
“Oh, and by the way, Obama’s health care bill does take money away from Medicare”
This got a half-true from Politifact, which states that “The bill doesn’t take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, attempts to slow the program’s future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/16/mitt-romney/500-billion-medicare-obamacare-romney-says/
Slowing the growth of Medicare seems like something you would support. But I guess now it has Obama cooties.
Also, according to the CBO, the stimulus added jobs and the unemployment rate would have been even higher without it, and businesses blame low demand more than high regulation for their troubles. I can’t get deeper into those issues right at the moment, unfortunately.
Tina, since I’ve been trying to get you to acknowledge that some prominent members of your party/movement have been acting wrongly, I think it relevant to post a recent article by David Frum, an influential Republican who has decided to speak out against the extreme rhetoric and ideological narrow-mindedness of many of his fellow Republicans. Perhaps you will find it inspiring.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
“Ive been a Republican all my adult life. I have worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, at Forbes magazine, at the Manhattan and American Enterprise Institutes, as a speechwriter in the George W. Bush administration. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation, and limited government. I voted for John McCain in 2008, and I have strongly criticized the major policy decisions of the Obama administration. But as I contemplate my party and my movement in 2011, I see things I simply cannot support…”
The budget claim is “half true” according to Politifact, not false as mediaite reports:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/05/buddy-roemer/obama-submitted-budgets/
Obama not being able to get a budget passed with a super majority shows lack of leadership. He didn’t need a single republican vote to get his proposal passed.
But Obama is vague in other instances; vagueness allows him to make whatever claims he wishes and that is disingenuous when negotiating:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-we-dont-estimate-speeches_575464.html
But it isnt just his budgets its also proposals about savings under Obamacare:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/82709-cbo-says-obamas-health-plan-not-detailed-enough-to-score
CBO blog link below:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=473
President Obama has shown himself to be insincere in his negotiations and his proposals, IMHO.
“Also, according to the CBO, the stimulus added jobs and the unemployment rate would have been even higher without it, and businesses blame low demand more than high regulation for their troubles.”
In three years the unemployment rate has not improved by a significant amount. Added jobs are meaningless if they don’t equal or exceed lost jobs. Unemployment would have been higher without his stimulus because he GAVE money to states to save teachers jobs and to GM to save union jobs, and to Solyndra and other green companies. Temporary census jobs may be included in that evaluation as well.
CBO cannot, and would not, comment on what a different policy would have produced. We do have examples of other presidents, both dems and reps, using policies to increase jobs and spur the economy after a recession. In all cases the economy turned around and unemployment normalized within about 18 months…and without the massive debt and inflation we are experiencing. (Note: the inflation rate is being scored without food or energy included providing a false picture of inflation.)
Of course businesses blame no demand…NOBODY HAS, OR WANTS TO SPEND IF THEY DO, ANY MONEY in this environment! But it’s silly to use this to defend Obama’s failed policies. Businesses know that it is a combination of things…all bad…that this president has done. Heritage has an article that attempts to put a dollar figure on regulations using both the Bush years and the Obama years. A paragraph toward the end offers insight into the aprehension that business people have about regulation:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Red-Tape-Rising-Regulation-in-the-Obama-Era
This article would be a good for you to read, Chris, since it demonstrates a nonpartisan approach in evaluating the harm, or potential harm, regulation and new regulation has on business.