Think Progress

Major media blackout

By Nico Pitney on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 am

Major media blackout

on Ann Coulter’s remarks.

Comments
146

146 Responses to “Major media blackout”

the republic of stupidity says:

And that, my friends, was the true State of the Union speech…
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 am
beefeater says:

Here’s what I like. Post an Ann Coulter story and all the “progressives” start in with the queer jokes. Annie is a tranny, Mann Coulter, look at her big hands, she must be a tranny, wow, she/he has a big “Adams” apple. I guess there is something wrong about being a queer. What say you GLBT community? Is this the best way to insult Coulter? I suppose if you can’t argue, call her queer, no problem, your not important.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 am
AZ_Squeegee says:

Everyone should be riting the major news outlets. I did, but a single voice won’t do it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus says:

The MSM media is a corporate wh*re. Faiz, if you’re expecting any sort of responsibility or honesty from the press – you’re in for a long way.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 am
beefeater says:

But if a kid in the schoolyard says “thats so gay” crucify him, ya know?
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:47 am
Xenon says:

No. The best way to insult Coulter is to ignore her (and her ill-bred ilk).
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 am
wethepeople says:

Nothing going on here! Away with you…

Liberal Media HAAA-HAAA!!!
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:03 am
Tony W says:

#2 the difference is me calling Bush a chimp might be on a blog, if I was given a “key” speaking role at a national democratic gathering and I call him a chimp, every news source would run it for days..Heaven help Chris Matthews if I called his boy Rudy a cheating womanizer who had a mistress while he was still married,,fact yes,,but he’s blow his top over the “outrage”.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 am
Wayne says:

Countdown covered her slurs tonight.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 am
beefeater says:

Oh, but Xenon there is the rub. Ann does not get ignored now does she. And she knows how to push buttons and sell books. And I’m sure she just cries about your insults all the way to the bank. All you can hope for is that she roasts in hell, but a good “progressive” dosen’t believe, do you.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 am
Innocent Bystander says:

Ann Coulter is the face of the modern Republican / Conservative / Christianist movement. I hope she continues to be an headlining spokesperson for the Republican Party and gets plenty of airtime to share her thoughts with the American people. The more exposure, the better. Imagine, being a 48 year-old women, calling a Presidential nominee, a “faggot”. If you are a Republican, you have to be mighty proud of the people who speak for you.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 am
stonehinge says:

This has already gone far long. It’s high time that charges were brought to bear on this kind of behavior. How about some of the big money legal beagles start proceedings to put this meretricious hide in the poorhouse?

Well, why not? Isn’t it about time we made it clear that we will no longer tolerate this kind of base indecency in our political process?
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 am
Raymond Funamoto says:

Ann Coulter-GEIST has her BEARINGS all BALLS-UP as usual–FIRST, IT IS THE repugnant-repub rightwingnut cranks WHO ARE THE REAL CLOSET QUEERS, like CHIMPya, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, PRACTICALLY ALL OF Bushland Uber Allies is QUEER AND HIDING THAT FACT–DEMOCRATS COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY THAT THEY ARE GAY BUT THE “proud” “party of family values”, the FUDGE PACHYDERMS of the G(rotesque) O(pportunistic) P(edophile) party ARE ALL DEATHLY AFRAID OF BEING OUTED AND FOUND OUT! SO, Coulter-GEIST, BEFORE YOU GO AROUND CALLING John Edwards A “FAGGOT”, GET YOUR BEARINGS IN YOUR GEAR-LOOSE CRANIUM CORRECT, YOU FAG-HAG FAGGOT!!!!!
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 am
stonehinge says:

GOP = FUDGE PACHYDERMS

Raymundo….BRAVOLINGUS!!!!!

See Manne, there’s a right way and a wrong way.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 am
beefeater says:

Raymond Funamoto
Thank you for making my point, all though you are probably a 13 year old living in mommies basement eating cheetos. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 am
Wayne says:

This has already gone far long. Itâ€™s high time that charges were brought to bear on this kind of behavior. — stonehinge

I am afraid that if the justice department actually brought charges for political behaviour, it would to be jailing Democrats and opposition voices. Remember who is in charge of the JD, and the new political appointee Federal Prosecutors. Not to mention posse comatatus being voided in the John Warner act. Bush can attack US citizens with military troops at his own decision now.

The Dems have to impeach. And then repeal some very, very bad laws passed by the rubberstampers.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 am
Richard says:

How would it go over if there was a site, say theanticoulter.com, that took Ann’s remarks and simply substituted a GOP nominee’s name? Or substituted “Republicans” for “Democrats”, “conservatives” for “liberals”?
The moment any of the satirical headlines drew any criticism, one would track back to her original comments, complete with video.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:42 am
beefeater says:

Ann Coulter is single, has never been married, and has no children. Edwards is married and has children. People who live in glass housed should not throw stones.

Comment by CaptainVideo â€” March 3, 2007 @ 2:39 am

So we are to infer from your astute observation that all single childless females are queer? Hey, live it up dude! WTF would you date?
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 am
stonehinge says:

Yeah, Wayne, I know…but…we’ve got two more years until we have control over the Senate. Assuming we can get past March without invading Iran, why not start by flushing the sewers? Think not?
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 am
DrBrentos says:

Glass houses (m)Ann… Glass houses…
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 am
Barfly says:

Thank you for making my point, all though you are probably a 13 year old living in mommies basement eating cheetos. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Comment by beefeater

Pot, meet kettle.

Coulter is always saying the reason she gets away with spewing such tripe is because of her sex – and beefeater thinks it’s out of bounds to talk of Coulter’s sexuality when discussing her screeds? Can’t have it both ways — if she’s going to talk like she’s got a pair, it’s fair game, beefy.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 am
TWeb says:

CaptainVideo Ann Coulter is a woman trapped in a man’s body trans-sexual women cannot bear children she still has a penis and relies heavily on hormones living stealth
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 am
Barfly says:

So we are to infer from your astute observation that all single childless females are queer? Hey, live it up dude! WTF would you date?

Comment by beefeater

Not necessarily queer – in Ann’s case, just frigid.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:01 am
DrBrentos says:

…frigid and clearly chronically constipated.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:05 am
beefeater says:

if sheâ€™s going to talk like sheâ€™s got a pair, itâ€™s fair game, beefy.

Comment by Barfly â€” March 3, 2007 @ 2:56 am

So if a women speaks like a what, a man, that makes her queer. What if she speaks like a scientist, or a doctor, or a judge or anything but a cookie baking little housewife? Hey caveman, move into the 21st century. That’s what I just love about you progressives. Hey women and queers, back in your place!
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 am
Abby says:

Nothing new about what Ann said or about what the media ignored. What is new is the new position that the Democrats occupy now.

Now the Democrats are the top dog, not the bitch. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats have the balls to make a garland out of this and hang it on the Republican Party’s neck.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 am
beefeater says:

Well, my anti-virus progam just kicked in, I’m going to leave now. Talk among yourselves, g-nite.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:19 am
Barfly says:

So if a women speaks like a what, a man, that makes her queer.

Is that all you can do? Construct weak strawmen? I said she was frigid, and you haven’t posted anything to prove my assertion wrong. Typical republican. Try actually reading the post next time, beefy.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:20 am
Barfly says:

What if she speaks like a scientist, or a doctor, or a judge or anything but a cookie baking little housewife?

Strawmen are real tough.

What a wimp you are – and I mean that in a strictly intellectual sense.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:21 am
Barfly says:

Talk among yourselves, g-nite.

Comment by beefeater

Brave Sir beefeater makes a strategic withdrawl. Adios, cowpie.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 am
Fools on the Hill says:

Ann was only part of a freak show. Her comments would not even be considered clever by 5th graders. The real news and the real freaks are the conservative presidential candidates who stated they plan to continue and who they each justified Bush’s fear-mongering, war-mongering, and fascist policies. Americans should be very concerned at what the candidates said, not by Ann’s stupidity.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 am
Paige PbD says:

**

Here’s a perfect example of how many in the media can’t just call a spade a spade when it comes to Bush’s very low job approval ratings. Look at this inconsistency from McClatchy.

They write:

“Roughly 75% of Republicans still say consistently that they approve of George Bush’s job performance.”

(but a couple of paragraphs down in their article, it says):

“A New York Times/CBS News poll published Friday found Bush’s approval rating among Republicans at 65%, a drop of 13% points.

They use the Headline of:

“Core group of Bush loyalists stand by their man”

(but quote someone in their own article as saying):

“If you go below 30%, it means your own party has abandoned you.”

Look how contradictory they are in expressing the fact that Independents have overwhelmingly bailed on Bush:

“Independent voters also have turned against Bush, although roughly 29% say they still approve of his job performance”

‘ALTHOUGH’ ??? A more appropo word would be O N L Y!
Notice that they chose the word ALSO when it comes to ‘turning against Bush’. Another finding in the poll McClatchy cites shows that a Majority of Republicans disapprove of the Job Bush is Doing in Iraq. Yet they go on to say this:

“While Republicans have become more likely to express their displeasure with events in Iraq, most continue to support the war..”

What? Since when is a minority “MOST” ?? One more spin. They write:

“Bush’s slide in the polls stopped a year ago. His approval rating dropped into the 30s in March 2006 and has stayed there, with minor fluctuations.”

Notice that if Bush’s approval rating goes up a mere 1-3 points, the media often reports it as a “bump” or a “bounce” but Bush has gone from the high 30’s to the 20’s. They say that means that “his slide in the polls has stopped”… And double digit drops on issues such as Iraq, terrorism, and others is characterized as “minor fluctuations’. The media often seems either reluctant or even schitzophrenic when it comes to reporting whether or not Republicans and/or Independents are still supporting Bush, the War in Iraq and other issues where Bush is failing.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/m…cs/ 16821022.htm

They just can’t come to the realization that most Americans think Bush IS a major failure and that most Americans just want his Presidency “TO BE OVER” !! The media often has black outs or schitzophrenia. Facts are facts and I don’t know they find themselves to be credible when they continue to omit or misrepresent the facts, whether it’s something Ann Coulter said/did or how most Americans view George W. Bush. I just wish the news was about news again and not mostly commentary/opinions and sensationalism for ratings. Ugh.

**
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:15 am
Bruce Gorton says:

beefeater

If a woman speaks like a stupid bitch, calling her one is okay.

Remember, this is the same Ann Coulter who called the widows of 9/11 the “Witches of East Brunswick” who repeatedly bashes gays, claims that women should not have been given the vote, who is unmarried yet has repeatedly had sexual relationships outside of wedlock – while acting self-righteous about her religion which demands she not do that.

She has called for the deaths of judges who have rendered verdicts that she disagrees with, called for the deaths of leading politicians she disagrees with (And I am not talking about “Lets take out their leaders and convert them all to Christianity” here, I am talking about moderately conservative AMERICAN leading politicians.)

With Ann Coulter, apart from the fact that she has got to be one of the least attractive people I have ever seen, calling her gay is a mortal insult not because we liberals see anything wrong with gays, but because Ann Coulter believes gays are in some way related to devil worship.

So while you are trying to defend this mysognistic, outright racist, callous, stupid and hypocritical thing called Ann Coulter, bare in mind just who the hell she is, what she stands for, and what she is saying.

Oh, and bare in mind next time someone talks about the “Liberal” media, just how little coverage the “Liberal” media gave Ann Coulter calling a married leading Democrat presidential candidate a “Faggot.”
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:17 am
Laura says:

I swear, I just don’t understand how Christians can have people like Coulter, Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and other hateful lunatics representing them. Can’t they see the piece of the “Godly-love” puzzle is missing?
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:29 am
creasybear says:

Empires fall, not to war –
Not to steeds, not fire,
But to the sick lust of –
a wrangling and common few.
Who shoot their desire like arrows on bows,
all for a pleasure so sick, so dreary.

They, who with aflamed desires,
With heart so souless, cold and empty;
Lie, betray, pervert, and seek to steer,
the hearts of men to their whim and cause.
A Cause, so lost, so dark, utterly cursed.

The mounds of fresh tombs are –
the footprints to their gloomy dreams,
For they think – They own life;
and can take that of the ruled cattles-
to lengthen theirs.
So, with energy so full of hate to their unkind,
Feelings, so quick to judge the dissent,
They rule and punish like lions in the wild.

The forgotten tombs of their desires are many,
With avarice ever soaring like flames,
They create a force, a legion –
So mighty, that their power, looms -
to the heavens with unrestrained swiftness.

Their heart and minds are like cup so filled,
filled to the brim that nothing can enter.
Lo, trap in the emptiness of their minds,
Caught in the quicksand of their vanity.
They move around in total blindness, unknowing.

Glory, they carve out of falsehood,
Their lies they inscribe on marbles and gold,
They deal in lies, profit and liveth in it,
They worship a god, a cause, thats their making,
A making like the web of spiders,
Strong on the weak, but nothing to the wise.

Let the servants of lust learn,
Let the slave of vanity listen,
That falsehood live in chambers of darkness,
Embracing the stygian deepness of dark,
But are like blown ashes in the wind before light.
Let them learn that theirs is a quick end,
Like the end of all before them.
An end, as meaningless, as what they seek.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:14 am
ace says:

Paige:

Great post about the controlled media. They all answer to David Rockefeller at the top of the strategic pyramid. The world’s most powerful and dangerous man – a true American Traitor – directing literally EVERYTHING that occurs from 9/11 forward (including 9/11). Follow the money. How did DOD Comptroller, Dov Zakheim, manage to steal $7 Trillion from the DOD and ship it to Israel in the weeks preceding 9/11? Why have you never seen his name in the media? Where is former Comverse CEO (and 9/11 king pin), Kobi Alexander? He’s wanted on Federal charges, yet Cheney has him sequestered in the witness protection program.

As for Coulter:
The Democratic Party should encourage her to speak publicly on behalf of the Republican party as often as possible. Let her entertain the twenty percenters, while she pisses off the entire rest of the country.

You think American Parents want their children to learn any of their behaviors from this woman? Not a chance. She’s as dangerous to American culture as any foul-mouthed rapper in the eyes of mainstream amrican parents.

You’ve dug yourself quite a hole there, Ann. Here’s a microphone and a camera…by all means, keep digging!

The media’s direct role in the destruction of America proceeds apace. Liberal media my ass.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:23 am
ace says:

The real “Major Media Blackout” is any and all discussion of 9/11 – including who did it.

Half of the purported “hijackers” on the (far too convenient) initial list provided to the public via the media by the FBI are in fact STILL ALIVE. The FBI confirms that the original list is inaccurate, and that half of the hijackers were misidentified, but the media doen’t think that’s a story? Sure, you bet.

The puported “Bin Laden Confession Video” is blatantly a forgery, as the actor in the tape bare no resemblence to Bin Laden – and even the FBI refuses to confirm its authenticity…but the media doesn’t think that’s a story? Sure, you bet.

On the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted web site, Osama Bin Laden is of course featured, but the MASSIVE HEADLINE ought to read: “BIN LADEN NOT WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH 9/11 ACCORDING TO FBI!” – but the media doesn’t think that’s a story?

Sure – you bet.

The media does not work for you. This much is crystal clear.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 am
Perry Logan says:

Wingers are obviously turned on by liberals.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 am
s says:

The real story here is the level of our National discourse……our sickness as a Nation. That is the REAL news. The fact that Major news organizations are ignoring it is very very significant and tells us more clearly that our Democracy is dying. The MSM is no longer the people’s.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:36 am
criticalthinker says:

re#35 Bruce Gorton

Tell it like it is!
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 am
Charles Barton says:

Republican hate speech has come back to haunt them. The thinking mistakes that we find in Republican discourse, has infected the White House. Bush policy is so messed up because the White House is just as delusional as Ann Coulter. By the way, that dyke sure has balls!
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 am
Roger_Roger says:

Media not covering the story huh? Lets see if TP is telling the truth here:

Foxnews:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256239,00.html

Does Drudge Carry the Story?
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Oh yes, right that the top left corner in fact!

Wow, so the 2 big “evil” conservative sites seem to be featuring this story which only means the lefty sites like MSNBC and CNN will run the story today. Funny how Fox News leads with this story. Even funnier how TP calls this story a media blackout when the highest rated cable news network is in fact running this story as news.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:51 am
Badger says:

This conference was attended by ALL the Republican candidates for president except John McCain. Comments Gentlemen?????
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:57 am
Roger_Roger says:

#45 John McCain didn’t attend because you have to be a conservative to go. You see, John McCain is a lefty and no one in the Repug or Dem party likes him. Pretty simple if you ask me.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 am
Badger says:

#46 Nice Deflection…but What do the other Republican Candidates think of Ann Coulters statement regarding a leading Democratic Opponent.????
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:08 am
s says:

Roger – Roger….you fool no one. Get a life
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:14 am
hacker bob says:

This has already gone far long. Itâ€™s high time that charges were brought to bear on this kind of behavior. â€” stonehinge

Don’t let that freedom of speach thing get in the way.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
AboveTheClouds says:

FOX News and Drudge are your news sources? Good grief. Coulter is just revving up the GOP “We-have-nothing-to-offer-America-so-let’s-start-the-name-calling-now” campaign on behalf of the Republicans.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:25 am
Badger says:

I’m pretty sure that Free Speech is still in the Constitution, so no Charges will be brought….but it is Time for the public to know what is being said at a leading Conservative Conference, and reaction to it by the Republicans who want our Vote for president. Nice Straw Man.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:25 am
wake-n-bake says:

This has already gone far long. Itâ€™s high time that charges were brought to bear on this kind of behavior. â€” stonehinge

Donâ€™t let that freedom of speach thing get in the way.

Comment by hacker bob

When you abuse your “rights”, sometimes you lose them. Using the harshest of terms for gays in a partison attack might actually be so offensive as to not grantt protection under “freedom of speech”.

Don’t let that “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” thing get in the way.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:29 am
Farnsworth says:

We gays don’t want her,don’t saddle her /it , with our labels!
She’s the result when a Gannon Type A and a Bush Type A, make love in the Lincoln Bedroom
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
Georgette Orwell says:

I’m extremely happy that her comments are getting little attention in the msm–it’s about time her lifeline was choked off.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:42 am
tarazan says:

I think she should be ignored….she and people like her thrives on controvercies. That is because media loves contorvercies and odd stories.

Look at Nicole’s story which can be summed up with ‘ a young girl with big boobs,married very old man ,inherited his millions,posed in Playboy magazine….having child which we don’t know who the real father is.’..became a big story,that deserve hours and hours of daily television.

Now Coulter’s remarks here and there preaching us about morality,politics as if she knows it all…..Why should we even care for what she says?!

Let’s focus on the issues of education,health,war and peace instead….

Both stories are symbol of what we became as a society; ignoring the big stories like war and hang on stories of gossip and meaningless topics.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
ObviousToMe says:

One thing that is quite clear about the state of the media, politics and the leadership in all quarters of this country is the complete lack of any adult behavior.

It’s a complete embarrassment to me.

No wonder respect for the USA is at an all-time low. Just look at how so many people act today…like complete children!

Political discourse of any quality is practically non-existent.

Itâ€™s simply shameful – and if left to continue like the recent Coulter episode appears to be being treated as â€“ the downward spiral will continue.

Attacks like this donâ€™t just hurt the person they are aimed at, but also cheapen our society as a whole and serve no function other than to show the complete ignorance of the person making the charge.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 am
creasybear says:

#38 &39 ace, I wanna volunteer to your comment.

The total core and serious questions about 9/11 remains something discussed with psst, and total hush hush. Why? Because the Israelis are involved, complicating everything. And to put it according to the words of the ADL, Anti-Defamation-League word: CONSPIRACY THEORY.

The arrested Israelis. The collapose of the World Trader center. Osama Bin Laden. Afghanistan. The World Wide persecution of Islam and Muslims, that lead to the creation of many Muslims concentration camps (though the media calls it terrorists camps), Iraq, and now Iran, and likely Syria with the entire moslem world.

Iraq is a bigger maddness, and I strongly believe if we want an end to this entire insanity, we should do a little reverse back to the begining. Maybe a history of this bloodrayne would help us know who and what’s actually behind all these organized lies, scams, pillaging, looting and destructions:
On 9/11/01 there was a NORAD hijacking exercise, which seems to have caused some confusion when the real hijackings occurredâ€¦.” This statement suggests that there was “a” single exercise, but there were several war-games in full swing on the morning of 9/11.
In the recent, well-referenced scholarly volume, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Elsevier, 2006), there is an essay by Don “Four Arrows” Jacobs entitled “The Military Drills on 9/11: ‘Bizarre Coincidence’ or Something Else?” He documents the possibility of seven, maybe eight, exercises ongoing on 9/11. Lets call that coincidence one. Well, with the Israelis involved, although we know the Israelis have forever been spying on us, the real question needed to be asked. We picked this date, for the attacks. We all know the Arabs, can do anything superb like this? Mohammed Attah and his colleagues went to flight simulation schools, and I wonder how someone who learned flying on something like XBOX and PS2 could maneuver two planes around the WTC in a 360 Degree arch style, before crashing. Sept 11 was the work of professionals. It was the work of someone who wanted and was expecting a war. Apparently, not the Talibens. Not Saddam. And not the Iranians? So why can’t we JUST OPENLY ASK ourselves the obvious: Are the arrested Israeli students the terrorists?

And what more, not a single Jew died………both inside and outside the World trade center? Why? Because a group called Odigo sent message to every Jew to evac the WTC. Why didn’t they send such similar message to the other non-jews? These questions leave one with the sour answer: Who really wants the Americans troops burning and bliztering the entire Middle East. Who wanted War down there?

Another food for thot. Something quite very funny and similar followed when London was also attacked.
Bomb drill exercise simultaneously occurred as London attacks 7/10/2005 8:30:00 AM GMT
A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running a full drill exercise for an unnamed company which revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as was happening in real life on July 7th.
Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.
Visor’s managing director told the radio show’s host that at the exact same time as the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise drill in which the London Underground was being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.
The transcript is as follows.
POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.
HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don’t want to reveal their name but they’re listening and they’ll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they’d met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

The media stop working for non-Jews since WWI, and thats one of the reason the Holocaust remains a very vey lucrative enterprise for the Israeliz. We need to know what we don’t know, and stop our soldiers from killing and dying for these scums. We need to understand who the real enemies are! Ann Coutler is just one of the many good Jews doing the excellent work of Israel, and was hugely praised in the http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp mag and website.
Forget the Media, its theirs!
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
Badger says:

I have to agree that this is ” the complete lack of any adult behavior”.This was not the Daily Show …. this was a comment by the KEYNOTE Speaker and a MAJOR CONSERVATIVE CONFERENCE…and followed by APPLAUSE.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 am
VerbalKint says:

What? Howard Kurtz isn’t writing something about Ann’s hateful remark?!?

Just kidding. Kurtz, one of the administration’s most able water carriers, gets indignant and sanctimonious when a few anonymous commenters at HuffPo let it slip that Cheney getting fragged might seem like a good thing, but what are the chances that Howie will write anything to embarrass the hard right? Zip.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 am
Quadrajet says:

#59 – Funny isn’t it VK? Kurtz has to troll through comments made by anonomous blog posters to find ‘hate’ speech by liberals, yet all we have to do is flip on the TV to find it spewing from the mouths of those who put themselves up as conservative spokespeople. Yesterday resident troll Mark called me an idiot for saying something to this effect and assured me he could find 5 liberal spokespeople guilty of this for every one conservative I named – Coulter, Limbaugh, Robertson, Hannity, Dobson. Of course he never actually named one, let alone 5 for each.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Ron Paul for pres says:

Major media blackout

on Ann Coulterâ€™s remarks.

As it should be.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
GSD says:

Republicans are OBSESSED with gay sex. OBSESSED I say. They think about it day and night.

Robertson, Coulter, Michael Savage, Michael Medved.

They are OBSESSED with gay sex.

-GSD
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
Klyde says:

When you abuse your â€œrightsâ€, sometimes you lose them. Using the harshest of terms for gays in a partison attack might actually be so offensive as to not grantt protection under â€œfreedom of speechâ€.
Donâ€™t let that â€œyelling fire in a crowded theatreâ€ thing get in the way.
Comment by wake-n-bake

As much as I despise coulter and the rightest who enable her there is no way that her filth about Edwards rises to the level of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 am
Bruce Gorton says:

hacker bob

Freedom of speech does not cover slander, libel or plaguerism. Ann Coulter has engaged in all three for years. She can be had in court for all three and she would lose.

It probably wouldn’t help her case much that she would then go on to blame the judge for correctly interpreting the case law on the subject.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
S.D. says:

Me, I’d like to hear Republican party officials counter her remarks, but they won’t or at the least, Editorial comments on the news countering her remarks.

The Republican party seems content to let Ann Coulter be the public face of “Conservatives”. She’s hardly conservative and certainly a right wing radical out to sell more factually challenged books.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 am
wake-n-bake says:

Freedom of speech does not cover slander, libel or plaguerism.

Damn right, huh Klyde?
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
unbelievable says:

Well, I think we’ve seen how the blogosphere can counter balance the MSM’s silence. Look at what happened with Walter Reed. Even if the corporate owned media won’t pick up this story, you can be sure that people know about it. Sadly – not as many will care about Coulter’s slur as they should…
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
unbelievable says:

Donâ€™t let that freedom of speach thing get in the way.
Comment by hacker bob â€” March 3, 2007 @ 8:18 am

Don’t you mean free SPEECH?

Guess who isn’t smarter than a 5th grader….

I learned in 8th grade that there are caveats to your Constitutional rights. That if you yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre when there isn’t one, you have endangered others and therefore do not have a right to intentionally malicious free speech. Slander fits in this catagory as well.

As Worfeus used to wisely explain to you non-critical thinkers – your right to swing ends where my nose begins.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 am
unbelievable says:

Of course he never actually named one, let alone 5 for each.
Comment by Quadrajet â€” March 3, 2007 @ 10:38 am

I don’t get why he hasn’t figured out by now that we will expect him to prove what he claims…

Are these rightwingers really that stupid?
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
Scott says:

I would think that moderate media outlets not covering this is a good thing. Should we hope that she becomes un-marginalized?
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
Quadrajet says:

Are these rightwingers really that stupid?
Comment by unbelievable â€” March 3, 2007 @ 11:27 am

Good morning UB. That was a rhetorical question, right?
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 am
unbelievable says:

Good morning UB. That was a rhetorical question, right?
Comment by Quadrajet â€” March 3, 2007 @ 11:41 am

Howdy!

Can’t get anything past you ; )

I’m finding it truly strange that several of my responses to robert are disappearing shortly after the first appear… only reponses to robert and not any others. Odd.

Anyway, it seems that the only people left supporting people like Coulter are as vile as she is…
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 am
klyde says:

Freedom of speech does not cover slander, libel or plaguerism.
Damn right, huh Klyde?
Comment by wake-n-bake

Did you mention slander, libel or plagierism?
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Smack says:

The absolute worst thing you can do to the Trolls and people like Coulter/Malkin, is to IGNORE THEM.

I know it’s hard to do sometimes, but it really pisses them off. No reward, No reinforcement, no more trolls.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Marie says:

What IS it with the right wing and their complete obsession with sex? Sex, sex, sex. They don’t like it, they think it’s wrong, they want to decide who can partake, they want to control it in society, they preach about it, they condemn it, they pervert it.
There is something seriously wrong with them collectively.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Marie says:

The msm will argue that their non-coverage of this latest outrage is because they don’t want to give “publicity” to such remarks — but that false argument seems to be forgotten when a Democrat fumbles a joke, or uses a legitimate word that the republiscum take offense.
The msm continues to be lapdogs for the rightwing, no matter what they deny, they will not expose them and the hateful, meanspirited, vile representatives they embrace.
That makes the msm part of the problem.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
unbelievable says:

I know itâ€™s hard to do sometimes, but it really pisses them off. No reward, No reinforcement, no more trolls.
Comment by Smack â€” March 3, 2007 @ 11:57 am

I disagree based on experience. If we ignore them and their kind, they think they’ve been granted some mandidate to behave badly as a result. If we smack them around, they get that we aren’t tolerating their hatred and violence. And that their vitriolic actions have undesirable consequences…
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Abby says:

#74: That would be the way to go if it was only about Coulter/Malkin/O’Reilly/Hannity/Rush/Savage et al, but it is not.

Not by a long shot.

It is time the Republicans were made to stand up and denounce the very people they rely on to get themselves elected to office. The Party of Hate has to be forced to openly embrace or reject the values of Hate. The mask of “christian values” and “family values” that they hide behind has to be torn off their faces.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
hacker bob says:

Donâ€™t you mean free SPEECH?

Guess who isnâ€™t smarter than a 5th graderâ€¦.
Comment by unbelievable â€” March 3, 2007 @ 11:24 am

Wow, you have never made a typo? I forgot, you are perfect.

How is Coulter calling someone a “faggot” any worse than someone calling Christians “cristo-facists” or calling a group of people “al Crakkkers” or the countless other things used to insult people on THIS VERY SITE.

I learned in 8th grade that there are caveats to your Constitutional rights. That if you yell â€œFIRE!â€ in a crowded theatre when there isnâ€™t one, you have endangered others and therefore do not have a right to intentionally malicious free speech.

How did calling Edwards a “faggot” endanger the public?

Slander fits in this catagory as well.

How so? Do you know for a fact that it is not true? Stupid and insulting, but not slanderous.

For that matter, your first insult in this post could be concidered libel.

As Worfeus used to wisely explain to you non-critical thinkers – your right to swing ends where my nose begins.

Yet, you swing every day, don’t you? That is the beauty of this country.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
GWB says:

hehehe. Jeff Gannon was a good boy for me. And turdblossom, he was great. Ann dresses in drag for us here in the WH, so we love him. Here’s some more pics of Ann in drag:

http://www.hoolinet.com/StrapOnVets/tabid/278/Default.aspx
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Pudenda Shenanigans says:

Leave me along, you FAGS!!!
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
mikey says:

Exactly no.6. the best way to deal with it/her is to ignore her. Ann and Rush et. al. need to try to inflame people to make themselves relevant. The fact that no major media outlets wants to give her a megaphone is better than saying anything about her at all.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
rachel says:

http://www.peace-action.org/

———————————————————————————

To: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
cc: Chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Committee on International Relations

We, the undersigned, vehemently oppose any U.S. military action against Iran. Such military action would inevitably kill large numbers of innocent people, foster even more hatred and international condemnation of the U.S., and dramatically increase the instability of the region. Our own intelligence agencies have concluded the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat, and a war against Iran would add immeasurably more fuel to the fire.

Even if Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon, experts agree that it would take several years. There is no crisis, and our government should not create one with inflammatory rhetoric or military threats. The U.S. has both the time and obligation to work with the international community to fashion a diplomatic resolution to the situation, and the current refusal of U.S. officials to talk directly with Iranian officials cannot possibly help resolve the nuclear standoff, nor contribute to peace in Iraq and the Middle East.

Therefore, we urge you to take all steps necessary to reach a peaceful resolution to the current situation, including direct negotiations without pre-conditions. This is the only way to prevent yet another war, one that would be a calamity of truly global proportions.
———————————————————————–
No War with Iran!
President Bush is now regularly accusing Iran of supporting attacks on U.S. troops, without any evidence, – remember the WMD’s in Iraq, anyone? – adding that “we will seek out and destroy” these networks. Bush has authorized U.S. forces to kill Iranian “operatives” in Iraq, and he is sending nuclear aircraft carriers and missile defense batteries to the Persian Gulf. The unthinkable – a wider war in the Middle East – is unfolding.

John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that any U.S. military move into Iran would be “catastrophically stupid” and “unleash a conflagration like we’ve never heard of before.” We could not possibly agree more.

Resistance to a Bush planned military strike on Iran is growing in Congress, but it needs your help! Sign the petition to Congress below – No War with Iran! House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said recently that she would introduce legislation to stop such a strike, so our demand is beginning to get through. But the pressure needs to be much, much stronger to stop a President who has apparently gone mad with war and his own power.

Please know that your email address is for internal purposes only; we will not send it to the petition recipients nor share it with any other organization for any purpose. Thanks also for forwarding this to your friends, colleagues and listserves. We need everyone who wants to bring peace to the Middle East and prevent a war with Iran to join the effort now!
———————————————————————————–

http://www.peace-action.org/
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Toonguy says:

Natalie Maines says she’s ashamed of Bush and they have bonfires with her CD’s.

So where are the bonfires of Ann Coulter books? Where’s the outrage?

Do I sense a double standard? That’s what this is all about.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Kate Henry says:

All I have to say is Thank God for the Internet. That is the only place I get my news these days. How inconvenient for the MSM to have an outlet for news that they can’t control!
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
rachel says:

All I have to say is Thank God for the Internet. That is the only place I get my news these days. How inconvenient for the MSM to have an outlet for news that they canâ€™t control!

Comment by Kate Henry

This is why we should be supporting websites such as:

http://www.eff.org – A non profit lobby, fighting for our internet rights.

They have filed several federal suits to keep the internet just as it is today.

Without question, they deserve our full support.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Badger says:

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those who complain that they don’t get the whole story from the Main Stream Media. Get Real. If anything, the MSM will introduce you to a topic in a short segment. If a topic interests someone, they can follow up with further inquiries. Some topics need a whole book to explain.
No doubt the way an issue is Shaped will result in a slanted view. But it is not hard to find other takes on the subject. It is up to the consumer of news to explore a topic to the level they require.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
klyde says:

How is Coulter calling someone a â€œfaggotâ€ any worse than someone calling Christians â€œcristo-facistsâ€
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
leaf_eater says:

beefeater -

Looks like you were the second person to post on this article, and the first to bring up Ann Coulters sexuality. But your complaining about tranny/mann comments? You brought them up first, didn’t you?

Here’s what I like beefeater (since we are talking about what we like) I like rock skull conservatives to come on Democratic/Progressive web sites and makes asses of themselves and their whole party, quite like you did. That’s what I like.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
leaf_eater says:

HEY, WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING BADGERS!

Badger– So what are you–defending the MSM? The same MSM that made a three day feeding frenzy off the Obama/Clinton/Geffen BS, cannot mention inappropriate use of SLUR language, and Presidential candidates laughing at it?? YOU GIVE ME A BREAK! I would expect the MSM to bat an eye at it, YES. I’m just waiting, patiently for these people to slip up and make a joke about a N*GGER , and to see people like you try to defend it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
GETREAL says:

KLYDE WROTE :

“How is Coulter calling someone a â€œfaggotâ€ any worse than someone calling Christians â€œcristo-facistsâ€

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

ONE — in most civilized circles “Faggot” is not only a derogatory term but a curse word. Using the word “faggot” is not any more acceptable than using the word “n*gger”

TWO — People don’t generally go around calling average Christians “christo-facist” and you know it, you whiner. When people are called “christo-facist” it is usually because they hold an EXTREMIST POINT OF VIEW!!! In this country people generally have respect for Christians, it’s just the WACKOS like FALWELL and ROBERTSON who make a bad name for you all. So, if your Christian, and a fascist, then your a “christo-facist” but average God-Loving Christians are not called such things, and you know it, so quite trying to turn apples to oranges, KLYDE.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Badger says:

Wasn’t defending the MSM, leafy. My point was that if you only rely on a 30 minute TV news program to inform you…you will end up UNDERINFORMED. Unfortunately, a LOT of Americans are in that category.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
michael says:

Give em hell Ann!
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
AshenShard says:

I’ve been thinking about the response of many liberal posters and how the trolls are pointing to this and saying it is the same thing and I have come to a conclusion. This may be a bit dense and confusing, but here it goes:

Our side keeps calling for rational debate and reason while those like Coulter who make statements, calling someone gay for example, are far from rational. The problem is, our side keeps trying to engage them in rational debate, back by truth and facts, and all they are going to do is say outrageous things and make outrageous claims. By attempting to engage these persons in rational debate we only legitimize their position. The reaction to Coulter on this and other sites is exactly what we need then, rather than engaging, throw her words right back at her and watch her squirm.

People like Coulter are as rational as those who claim(ed) the existence of a secular Jewish conspiracy for world domination. The best way to deal with it is to show our contempt by calling her out and not debating her. The best thing to do is throw what she says back in her face and not to try and rationally discuss the logical fallacy of her statements.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Crazy Eddie says:

So we are to infer from your astute observation that all single childless females are queer? Hey, live it up dude! WTF would you date?

Comment by beefeater

That would seem to be what Anne is saying about all married men, including you.

But let’s cut to the real issue, this woman, a lawyer and someone who is parotted by not so politically knowledgeable teens (and quite a few adults apparently).

Anne is supposed to be a professional, instead she’s acting like an angry schoolgrounder who resort to petty namecalling. Anne has, in a way, in order to do nothing more than create controversy, pulled a Brittney. (or a Janet (costume malfunction)).

Rush Limbaugh does much of the same thing, just like Oreilly and other Pundits. Anne is not a good role model no matter what side of the aisle you happen to be seated on.

Anne is clearly desperate to keep prop up her ludicrous self-serving act. I think it’s high time the media put an end to the immature, rude and crass Anne coverage
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Jim Groene says:

I think that the fact that there was no media coverage of Ann Coulter’s John Edwards comment is really because many Americans familiar with Coulter realize she has no credibility. She has a history of opening her mouth and letting incredibly stupid things pour out. Even with conservatives, she has become the woman you invite to a party even though you know she will get a little typsy and then say remarrkably inane things to which you might chuckle embarrisingly. She has entertainment value only. Nobody with average intelligence could possibly take her seriously. I don’t.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Crazy Eddie says:

KLYDE WROTE : â€œHow is Coulter calling someone a â€œfaggotâ€ any worse than someone calling Christians â€œcristo-facistsâ€

Anne certainly is not helping us Christians. She calls people who don’t follow her paid for political belief “Godless” as if God came after the invention of politics. (puttine man before the cart)

Explain to me, Anne watchers, why she thinks she knows my God follows a democratic ideology. Truly it takes an illogical person to make any sense of Annes Orwellian philos.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Barfly says:

Getreal:

That was hacker Bob’s comment, not Klyde:

How is Coulter calling someone a â€œfaggotâ€ any worse than someone calling Christians â€œcristo-facistsâ€ or calling a group of people â€œal Crakkkersâ€ or the countless other things used to insult people on THIS VERY SITE.

And it’s a matter of degree, Bob. Anonymous posters on a website aren’t published by a conservative publisher known for printing fact-challenged, anti-liberal screeds, and anonymous posters on a website don’t get paid millions of dollars to re-inforce hateful, untrue stereotypes. To even equate the two is silly. I’m surprised you don’t see that, Bob.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Barfly says:

Crazy Eddie, it wasn’t Klyde. Look at post 79.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Angry One says:

No one should be stunned by the almost complete lack of coverage of the Coulter slur from the mainstream media. After all, as I first suggested after Coulter slandered 9/11 widows last June, the media has already internalized this conservative brand of hate and takes it for granted.

Whether the issue concerns gay Americans, 9/11, abortion, judicial appointments or political corruption, a seamless continuum of hate runs from today’s Republican Party through to its most extreme conservative proponents. And that means the GOP differs only in degree – not in kind – from the cartoonish and sometimes criminal likes of Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps or Eric Rudolph.

For more on the media’s predictable silence when it comes to right-wing rage, see:
“Coulter’s Slur and the Conservative Brand of Hate.”
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Crazy Eddie says:

Hereâ€™s what I like. Post an Ann Coulter story and all the â€œprogressivesâ€ Beefeater

Oh how I am going to enjoy this. So you think Progressives are only Democratic? It’s easy to tell who you listen to and read.
Heres a Conservative (whatever that means today) ‘Progressive’
group. Now put down your progress air-brush, you have been ‘framed’ by a word.

Thursday, March 01, 2007
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/03/fec-fines-527-group-750000-for-campaign.php
FEC fines 527 group $750,000 for campaign finance law violations
Joshua Pantesco at 7:19 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced a settlement [press release] Wednesday in the case against the Progress for America Voter Fund (PFA-VF) [advocacy website] for violating campaign finance laws during the 2004 election cycle. The conciliation agreement [PDF text] indicates that PFA-VF will pay a $750,000 fine, the third largest fine in FEC history, and that PFA-VF agreed to register as a political organization.

PFA-VF (Progress for America voter fund) spent at least $30 million on advertising in support of President Bush during the 2004 election cycle.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Crazy Eddie says:

Crazy Eddie, it wasnâ€™t Klyde. Look at post 79.
Comment by Barfly

I copied the statement from another posters post. TY Barfly,Klyde, I stand corrected
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
str8edge says:

Interesting reading:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/nathan_nelson/2007/mar/03/the_shunning_of_ann_coulter#comment-411736
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
JTitor says:

Not sure why anybody is surprised that this isn’t carried on the mainstream disinformation outlet’s (Media). Her remark is to focus conservative talking points back to those issues that cause controversy. Rallying the NeoCon base through this kind of sick humor has always been the norm when the polls are down. I love the christian values of this so called Jesus loving group of people. It’s times like this that we get to see the true values of these people, and their distain for honest people.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Sharon says:

Great post’s #35 Bruce,#37,38,creasybear,#77Unbelievable and Marie..All informative and I agree…..May I add but one word about the on going action’s of Coulter and the reich winged culture…Disgusting……Blessings
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
AkaDad says:

I’m outraged that the shameless liberal media has refused to cover Ann’s eye-opening remarks at CPAC last night.

Why does the liberal media hate free speech? Clearly Ann’s just saying what many people are thinking. Squashing the truth and free speech can explain why she believes the Times building should explode and disintegrate into a pile of rubble. Can you blame her?

We can’t rest until we re-install the Fairness Doctrine and end the media consolidation that liberals forced on us during the Telecommunications act of 1996. That will stop the liberal bias.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Maeven says:

Major media blackout on Ann Coulterâ€™s remarks.

Let’s see if we can change that.

Videos of Coulter’s appearance (with selected clips featured separately) here.

When I have more time I’ll break it up into more linkable chunks. Special requests, just email me.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Scott says:

The NYT is now covering the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/politics/04coulter.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Joefriday says:

I disagree. This time I think the MSM should not report this. She holds no public office. It would be like the MSM reporting each day what crap rush and O’Lielly spout out. Now, if it were some one in either party, yes. BTW, I can’t stand her, lush or O’Lielly. The MSM should never have spread the swift boat crap.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
str8edge says:

Cool, Keep her talking; she can single handedly shut down the republicans.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report says:

Ann Coulter says these things to get publicity. And believe me, it’s all over the web. So she’s getting just what she came for.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
klyde says:

Crazy Eddie: KLYDE was responding to hacker bob’s bullsh*t but TP apparently ate my response. The short version was 1. None of us are the keynote speakers at a top party convention.
2.What else do you call facist who cloak themselves in chritianity.
3. Our statements are based on the actions of the people and groups we criticize and are not baseless slurs designed to stir up hatred.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Who is John Galt? says:

I think it would serve our country well if our representatives and liberal blogosphere were to get together when something like this happens and condemn this in unison. This is just the beginning; we have a year and a half of this crap to put up with. If the msm refuses to acknowledge this hate, we need to strike back quick and hard when this type of vitriolic speech is being used.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
str8edge says:

#109, Are you kidding; she is Ms Right, the face of conservatives. They own her and need to take responsibility for this hideous gutter snipe.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
AshenShard says:

CNN is going to be covering this … 10 p.m. tonight if I was not mistaken
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
kaes says:

“liberal bias” in wikipedia and conservative solution

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2642.htm#005
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
AshenShard says:

#116 kaes

seems they cannot come to terms with the fact that reality has ‘a well known liberal bias’. And I also like the fact that the crap their pants about British form of spelling used on Wiki… what a bunch of cry babies.
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
str8edge says:

This is what reality means to them:
http://www.fixedearth.com/
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
eve says:

NYTimes now has an article on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/politics/04coulter.html?ref=politics
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Badger says:

McCain, Giulianni, and a spokesman for Romney all denounced
coulter’s remarks in statements today. Must be running for President. I hope c-span has a shot of the audience to see who was applauding her comments.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
hacker bob says:

And itâ€™s a matter of degree, Bob. Anonymous posters on a website arenâ€™t published by a conservative publisher known for printing fact-challenged, anti-liberal screeds, and anonymous posters on a website donâ€™t get paid millions of dollars to re-inforce hateful, untrue stereotypes. To even equate the two is silly. Iâ€™m surprised you donâ€™t see that, Bob.

Comment by Barfly

OK, tell you what. Coulter, I agree, was stupid for saying that. But she is no less stupid than Bill Arkin (supposedly an independant Military advisor for NBC and WaPo) calling the troops “a mercenary…ooops…volunteer military”. (Yes, that is a slam on the members of the Armed Forces, not politicians.) Talk about “hateful, untrue stereotypes”.

So, where was the outrage from the “kinder, gentler” left?
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Badger says:

#121 are you sure Bill Arkin wasn’t rerfering to the Private Contractors??? I am hoping and praying that all our troops return home to there families safe and soon….but that’s a straw man argument. Glad you agree Coulter was stupid.. but was she stupid on purpose???
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
klyde says:

Nice straw man h-b.

I’ve never heard of Bill Arkin so i have a few questions. Is he a published author of hateful screeds that accuse rethugs of murder and treason? Is he a darling of the Democratic party? Has he been the keynote speaker at a big progressive event like say Yearly Kos. Has he been feted and had his photo taken with top democratic politicians? Has he ever called for the murder of a supreme court justice? If not how is his stupidity any way related to coulter?
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
big papa says:

Comment by Paige PbD #34

Great job/post…

…I feel you pain but…

…am ALWAYS cognizant of the fact that…

…the msm is owned by?

…Bushiva’s corporate political benefactors…

…who also hedge their bets from time to time…
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
hacker bob says:

Comment by klyde â€” March 3, 2007 @ 6:49 pm

He is published regularly in the Washington Post. Stick to the argument, not the history. How is it any worse for Coulter to say this than it is for Arkin, a “journalist”, to run down the troops?

Coulter has said many stupid and irresponsible things in the past. Would you also not be willing to say that Arkin has done the same?

Comment by Badger â€” March 3, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

Below is from the article, it links to the whole thing.

But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary – oops sorry, volunteer – force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

You will see he is talking about the TROOPS, not the contractors.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Crazy Eddie says:

From your link, HB, he also writes this; But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don’t see very many “baby killer” epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

Arkin writes his opinions, the only one I can agree with, from your link, is this clipping above.

This Iraqle debacle was planned well before 9/11 and really had nothing to do with that terror attack. Nation building, something this Bush admin said our troops should not used for.

I ask the troops, should they be used for Nation building?
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
RUCerious says:

Nice to see the mass media has some taste after all.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
crazyvietnamvet says:

I fear that one of these days Ms Coulter is going to really piss off someone who will put her out of her misery.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Barfly says:

OK, tell you what. Coulter, I agree, was stupid for saying that. But she is no less stupid than Bill Arkin (supposedly an independant Military advisor for NBC and WaPo) calling the troops â€œa mercenaryâ€¦ooopsâ€¦volunteer militaryâ€. (Yes, that is a slam on the members of the Armed Forces, not politicians.) Talk about â€œhateful, untrue stereotypesâ€.

So, where was the outrage from the â€œkinder, gentlerâ€ left?

Comment by hacker bob

OK, this Bill Arkin, who I’ve never seen or heard of before is officially rebuked. What’s the matter Bob? Can’t admit that there are mercenary aspects of the military? “Mercenary” can mean that soldiers serve to better themselves, just as in ancient times, not necessarily because of some overarching spirit of patriotism. Are you afraid to have that debate, because you think it debases your reasons for serving? At what point do incentives to enlist become so great that we are talking about mercs? And the foreigners who enlist, do so for more than just love of country – they are looking for an improved standard of living, just like mercs.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
chimpeach says:

Annthrax forgot to scorn and debase a few republic “fags”: Ted Haggard, Ken Melman, Tom Foley, Jeff “mandate” Gannon, to name a few.

But that’s different.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
katy says:

*
(Update at bottom: Edwards campaign: ‘Shame on you, Ann Coulter;’ Dean, Human Rights Campaign call on 2008 GOP candidates to condemn Coulter’s remarks)

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_tells_conservatives_I_was_going_0302.html
.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
hacker bob says:

Barfly,

Here is the definition of “Mercenary” for you:

American Heritage Dictionary – Cite This Source merÂ·ceÂ·narÂ·y (mÃ»r’sÉ™-nÄ›r’Ä“) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.

n. pl. merÂ·ceÂ·narÂ·ies

1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

Still want to stick by your claim that we are “mercs”. To a professional Soldier, the term is an insult. Yes, there is some “betterment of self”, but you leave out the part about “service to country”. Do some that serve do so ONLY out of a sense of patritism? No. But if you think the majority, or even a large minority serve for the “monitary gain” you have not seen a military pay chart lately.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
ballbuster says:

ANN COULTER IS A BALLBUSTER.
RIGHT ON!!!!
edwards is obsessed with his pretty hair.
March 4th, 2007 at 12:25 am
ballbuster says:

is the word, faggot, hate speech?
if so, does that mean we have freedom of speech, except for that word?

lets start the discussion.
$4.99 for the first minute…
March 4th, 2007 at 12:32 am
J.D. Rhoades says:

C’mon over to Governor Romney’s “unofficial” campaign blog, where I ask the question the Media won’t:

Governor Romney, At CPAC, columnist Ann Coulter referred to a Democratic presidential candidate as a “faggot” and said “our blacks are better than their [the Democrats] blacks.”

Since Democrats are routinely asked to comment on inflammatory statements by celebrities who support Democrats, I was wondering if you’d care to comment on Ms. Coulter’s remarks?

March 4th, 2007 at 12:41 am
unbelievable says:

Wow, you have never made a typo? I forgot, you are perfect.

A typo is when you hit an adjacent key… That wasn’t a typo.

How is Coulter calling someone a â€œfaggotâ€ any worse than someone calling Christians â€œcristo-facistsâ€ or calling a group of people â€œal Crakkkersâ€ or the countless other things used to insult people on THIS VERY SITE.

Besides the fact that we are anonymous bloggers? Because the Christo-fascist are being hypocritical and anti-Christian. They’ve earned those titles. Edwards has not.

I don’t expect you to understand. You aren’t capable.

How did calling Edwards a â€œfaggotâ€ endanger the public?

You really are a moron with ZERO critical thinking skills. Calling Edwards a “faggot”, in a society that is largely intolerant of gays hurts Edwards. Do you need to me to explain that as well?

How so? Do you know for a fact that it is not true? Stupid and insulting, but not slanderous.

It’s not my position to prove he isn’t – it is the person who make the claim (Coulter) that must prove that HE IS GAY. Comprendez?

For that matter, your first insult in this post could be concidered libel.

No. The truth isn’t always pleasant. I’m demonstrating right now that you are an idiot. That is not libel.

Yet, you swing every day, donâ€™t you? That is the beauty of this country.
Comment by hacker bob â€” March 3, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

But I don’t go around punching other people in the nose as a result. Unlike you and your ilk,. I look around before I start to swing. There is the difference.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:51 am
unbelievable says:

Wow, you have never made a typo? I forgot, you are perfect.

A typo is when you hit an adjacent key… That wasn’t a typo.

How is Coulter calling someone a â€œfaggotâ€ any worse than someone calling Christians â€œcristo-facistsâ€ or calling a group of people â€œal Crakkkersâ€ or the countless other things used to insult people on THIS VERY SITE.

Besides the fact that we are anonymous bloggers? Because the Christo-fascist are being hypocritical and anti-Christian. They’ve earned those titles. Edwards has not.

I don’t expect you to understand. You aren’t capable.

How did calling Edwards a â€œfaggotâ€ endanger the public?

You really are a moron with ZERO critical thinking skills. Calling Edwards a “faggot”, in a society that is largely intolerant of gays hurts Edwards. Do you need to me to explain that as well?

How so? Do you know for a fact that it is not true? Stupid and insulting, but not slanderous.

It’s not my position to prove he isn’t – it is the person who make the claim (Coulter) that must prove that HE IS GAY. Comprendez?

For that matter, your first insult in this post could be concidered libel.

No. The truth isn’t always pleasant. I’m demonstrating right now that you are an idiot. That is not libel.

Yet, you swing every day, donâ€™t you? That is the beauty of this country.
Comment by hacker bob â€” March 3, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

But I don’t go around punching other people in the nose as a result. Unlike you and your ilk, I look around before I start to swing. There is the difference.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:52 am
unbelievable says:

To even equate the two is silly. Iâ€™m surprised you donâ€™t see that, Bob.
Comment by Barfly â€” March 3, 2007 @ 2:20 pm

robert isn’t fond of critical thinking skills or reality.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:57 am
unbelievable says:

Crazy Eddie: KLYDE was responding to hacker bobâ€™s bullsh*t but TP apparently ate my response.
Comment by klyde â€” March 3, 2007 @ 4:26 pm

This happens to me often. Odd.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:58 am
unbelievable says:

OK, tell you what. Coulter, I agree, was stupid for saying that.

Took you long enough.

But she is no less stupid than Bill Arkin (supposedly an independant Military advisor for NBC and WaPo) calling the troops â€œa mercenaryâ€¦ooopsâ€¦volunteer militaryâ€. (Yes, that is a slam on the members of the Armed Forces, not politicians.) Talk about â€œhateful, untrue stereotypesâ€.

So, where was the outrage from the â€œkinder, gentlerâ€ left?
Comment by hacker bob â€” March 3, 2007 @ 6:29 pm

Who? Seriously… you find an obscure independent and expect us to know who he is and what he says? Please…

You don’t seem to get that calling a tyrant a tyrant isn’t hate-speech. But calling a seemingly straight man running for political office a faggot is.

Sheesh…
March 4th, 2007 at 10:06 am
hacker bob says:

Unbelievable

1) Typo= Typographical error. You are aware that, when you use all your fingers to type, the “A” and “E” keys are on the same hand. Therefore it is easy to “mis-key” things when in a hurry and not proof reading things. Lord knows, you have done it enough.

2) You have yet to demonstrate that calling Edwards a “faggot” presents a PUBLIC danger. You say that it hurts Edwards. Maybe it does politically, but that does not constitute a public danger. Besides, I think you and I both know that whoever is listening to Coulter is not likely to vote for Edwards to begin with. Talk about a lack of critical thinking skills.

3) Bill Arkin is far from obscure. He is frequently on NBC as a military analyst as well as being a published author and journalist for the Washington Post.

4) Hate-speech. That is a funny term. Anyone can call anything hate-speech. If you have an opinion that is different than mine, I could call it hate-speech. The really funny part of it is that the ones that rail so much against hate-speech are usually the ones (like you) that that are so fond of using hate-speech. Really, it boils down to “speech that is not PC”, and that can mean just about anything.

Face reality for just one second. Not everyone is going to agree with you and no matter what you say or do, you are not going to change some people. People will say stupid things on occasion, and some people will say stupid things consistently.

Here is a critical thinking puzzle for you: What happens when you start putting limits on speech? What happens when you dictate to people that they can not say stupid things for fear of litigation or incarceration?

Can you say “Orwell”?
March 4th, 2007 at 11:17 am
klyde says:

bob the hack,

why would i answer your question when it is a diversion from the topic? Coulter and arkin are in no way analogous.

Each time you post you prove that you are a nothing more than rightest shill who is incapable of telling the truth.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Barfly says:

Still want to stick by your claim that we are â€œmercsâ€. To a professional Soldier, the term is an insult. Yes, there is some â€œbetterment of selfâ€, but you leave out the part about â€œservice to countryâ€. Do some that serve do so ONLY out of a sense of patritism? No. But if you think the majority, or even a large minority serve for the â€œmonitary gainâ€ you have not seen a military pay chart lately.

Comment by hacker bob

Did I claim you were a merc? Nice strawman. Good quality straw – except he doesn’t stand too well. Who cares about looking at a military pay chart? How much would many of these soldiers be making in the private sector? Flipping burgers and cleaning toilets has no areas in which one can better themselves, so yes, my assertion is valid, that they joined to better themselves. I see my assertion was correct: you do think that admitting that soldiers join to economically better themselves somehow debases your service. Otherwise, why the “professional soldier” bit – unless the truth is too uncomfortable for you. My grandson recently enlisted, because he couldn’t find a job that paid enough to live on – so your assertions are pure bunk.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
tontocal says:

As a gay man, I found Coulter’s comment pretty laughable. It’s something that a 10 year old would say. The woman does it purposely to get press; it’s what she lives for; she’s a media vampire and a parasite on the body politic. No, what offended and shocked me was the audiences reaction to it. Now, I would have expected a few laughs and chuckles; wouldn’t have bothered me much. The fact that the comment was met by with whoops and cheers and slathering applause; that’s what I found repugnant. And apparently gay, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan was there. There ya go Andrew, there’s the party that you’re still trying to cling to.

I imagine that the cable talk shows will be covering it tomorrow, and I hope they handle it in such a way that the anchors discuss it, they have panels on to discuss it, and they just discuss the shit out of it, but nobody, NOBODY, has her on to air her own views. That would piss her off the most, being treated as object and not subject.
March 4th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
WC says:

Since Ann is practicing to be in the 8th grade again…

“Hey, Ann…it takes one to know one!”
March 4th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
rachel kinnardi says:

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography — by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin
————————————————————–

I encourage everyone to download and read this free book about George HW Bush. It explains how George Junior grew up as well as all of his misgivings then and now.

It is available in .htm and .zip format

EVERY dirty little secret is revealed. It is a GREAT recent history text.
March 4th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Bruce Gorton says:

hacker bob

Actually, yes, we do.

Just one example.

COULTER (page 205): The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nationâ€™s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardtâ€™s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the leftâ€™s renowned populist touch, the article began, â€œHis death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.â€ The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!

â€œStock Car Star Killed on Last Lap of Daytona 500.â€ New York Times. 2/19/01. Page 1.

Of course, little things like facts never get in the way of the rightwhinge now do they?
March 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Find Management Consultancy says:

IT Consultant: How To Manage Your Time During Start Up

As an IT consultant looking to go solo, how you can cut through the information overload so you can tune out the distractions and focus on only the most relevant, critical tasks for starting up a business? You need to first realize you may need to stop…
March 21st, 2008 at 2:12 am

Major media blackout

Major media blackout

146 Responses to “Major media blackout”

Blogroll