Alarming News

September 26, 2006

Attention feminists

I know you will all jump to Ann Coulter’s defense. Right? Right?

Posted by Karol at 06:49 PM |
Technorati Tags:

Sure thing, Karol. They’ll be defending Coulter when barnyard animals fly. And I’m not talking about chickens.

Posted by: Eric at September 26, 2006 at 8:34 pm

Defend her from what? Papantonio appears to be expressing sour grapes over her rejection of him. And looking at his photo, I can see why she wasn’t interested. The only women who will “date” Papantonio are those listed in the yellow pages under “escort.”

Posted by: sam at September 26, 2006 at 9:00 pm

Defend Coulter from personal attack? The woman who today calls Senator John Warner “fag-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor”? The woman who calls Gore “retarded”? The woman who has built a career on the foundation of the personal attack?
You’re kidding, right?
Listen: the Reich Wing still loves to drag out Clinton/Lewinsky and that was nearly ten years ago. (Remember: it wasn’t public until the Reich, in the form of Starr, made it public.)
I find it ironic that anyone on the Reich, which has raised the vindictive, hateful attack to a new level of artistry over the last few years, would have the brass balls to cry foul when Coulter’s honor is besmirched. Not surprising, of course, but definitely ironic.
Don’t make me laugh.

Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 at 11:51 pm

I don’t think feminists consider Ann Coulter a woman. For that, I can’t blame them.
if you had a clue about what the real Reich was like, Ann Coulter would seem like a plump, sexy angel. Since you obviously don’t, you two deserve each other.

Posted by: Ivan Lenin at September 27, 2006 at 1:17 am

I (heart) Coulter.
Even though she’s far too liberal!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at September 27, 2006 at 4:44 am

Remember: it wasn’t public until the Reich, in the form of Starr, made it public.
No, it wasn’t public until Clinton was sued for sexual harassment, lied under oath, and urged others to lie under oath. It was made public because Clinton couldn’t control his dick.

Posted by: sam at September 27, 2006 at 6:31 am

I can’t stand Coulter, but I agree that the line of questioning was completely inappropriate and unprofessional. You have to take a couple things into account though, for one it is Chris Matthews we’re talking about. Do I really need to elaborate on that? Also, Coulter happily brings this kind of attention on herself, so I doubt she’d even want to be defended.

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at September 27, 2006 at 9:40 am

Wasn’t she born somewhere in the middle like Jamie Lee Curtis? Or, is she one of the original test tube baby? I’ve heard both. Personally, I think she’s likely the first test tube hermaphrodite

Posted by: toby at September 27, 2006 at 10:08 am

Ann Coulter and Sam dating tips, I think I taste vomit.

Posted by: dan the x-Republican at September 27, 2006 at 10:20 am

My dating tip: Don’t treat your spouse like trash and humuliate her in front of the entire nation repeatedly. You want the definition of feminisim? Don’t treat women like trash. Obvsiously, not a dan the jackass dating tip.

Posted by: sam at September 27, 2006 at 10:25 am

The point of this post is that feminists decry women being treated like pieces of ass. Here is Chris Matthews and Mike Pampantonio guy doing just that. And, according to feminist doctrine, Coulter’s behavior is irrelevant–stop blaming the victim. If you want to attack her ideas, fine, but attacking her for being ugly or whatever should rile feminists. But won’t. Obviously.

Posted by: Karol at September 27, 2006 at 11:09 am

Remember the day when the Neo-Cons world shattering concern was wether or not Clinton was getting his silver shined by a chubby intern.
O the good ol’ days.
The Neo-Cons are partially to blame for Clintons lackluster performance on terrorism for creating such a meaningless distraction. As the current left is partially to blame for Bush’s performance [slow progress] in Afghan., Iraq and against Terror. I still believe we could’ve [should've] crushed Al-Qada prior to an Iraq invasion.
Now Al-Qada is like a weed in places they weren’t b4, even in Queens, NY! WTF.

Posted by: dan the x-Republican at September 27, 2006 at 11:16 am

I thought the point of the post was to get insight into Sam’s dating secrets.
Sam, make sure you do a crotch test, you never know what u get out of the Yellow pages!!!!! Unless that’s what u’r into, of course.

Posted by: dan the x-Republican at September 27, 2006 at 11:18 am

On a related note, do you think Michelle Malkin’s appearance would be relevant to a criticism of Hot Air?
I do, and here’s why:
Despite the informal nature of the medium, I think it would help her credibility if she dressed like Ann or Condi.
I don’t see how videoblogging in a chemise or showing cleavage makes her seem any smarter. On the contrary — as much as I enjoy the eye candy — I think it undercuts her intellectual respectability.
I mean, can you see Brian Williams or Tucker Carlson broadcasting in a “wife-beater” t-shirt?

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at September 27, 2006 at 11:31 am

I thought the point of the post was to get insight into Sam’s dating secrets.
No, jackass. Every post is followed by comments which you interpret as another opportunity for you to demonstrate how stupid you are. Carry on.

Posted by: sam at September 27, 2006 at 11:45 am

I am pro-feminist but don’t care what people say about Ann Coulter. Similarly, I am anti-rape but don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the integrity of Terry Nichols’s rectum.

Posted by: Charles at September 27, 2006 at 3:38 pm

So, you only defend the right of women to be taken seriously if they are women you like? Do you first interview individual women before making decisions like “treating women like pieces of meat=bad”?

Posted by: Karol at September 27, 2006 at 4:00 pm

No, I don’t presume that women are Ann Coulter. When I know them to actually be Ann Coulter I cease caring about their feelings. You can get all pissy and act like it is a moral imperative for me to give a shit about Ann Coulter but the truth is, as douchy as Chris Matthews and Guy Idontknow are (answer: quite), I still don’t care if someone, for example, notes that Ann Coulter is a skeleton with skin stretched so tightly over the frame that you can see her ribs through a parka.
So, for the record, yes Matthews and Whatshisname should be embarrassed for picking the worst reason – no matter how right they are – to attack Ann Coulter. Sort of. But I’m not going to hold a candlelight vigil for Ann Coulter until she stops crying long enough to make a public appearance nor will I buy her a sandwich so that mean Mr. Matthews will have nothing to joke about.

Posted by: Charles at September 27, 2006 at 4:09 pm

That’s a pretty selective memory you have there. To claim that the right has ” …raised the vindictive, hateful attack to a new level of artistry over the last few years…” is to damage your own credibility. The Clintons are the masters of that kind of hard-knuckle politics, and to suggest it occurs more frequently of viciously on the right is to live in your own fantasy world. Have you ever heard of James Carville?
In any event, as Karol pointed out in her comment, this has nothing to do with what Coulter says. It doesn’t have anything to do with Coulter, really. The question is whether the feminist groups have an actual ideology or whether they’re just propaganda arms of the DNC.
I guess you can’t really fight the “male-dominated power structure” when you’re part of it. And don’t have any actual, you know, principles.

Posted by: Eric at September 27, 2006 at 4:31 pm

A fair question at this point would be this: do you repudiate vile, baseless, personal attacks against everyone, or only against right-wing attack dogs?
When Kerry (a man I did not vote for, but who is nevertheless a decorated war hero who volunteered for service and, further, dangerous duty) was shamelessly smeared and his service to our country denigrated, did you rail against the attackers, or did you rub your little Republican hands in glee?
When Gore–obviously one of the smartest guys in public office in my memory–is called a “retard” by Coulter, and when she says that he’s clearly gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course, but she meant it as a personal attack) did you post any messages about raising the level of the national discourse?
When people on your own site here get all ad hominem with Lewinsky, ragging on her again about her weight (and boy, isn’t that an original insight at this late date…), do you tell people to clean up their acts?
Your selective outrage is very, well, selective.

Posted by: Michael at September 27, 2006 at 8:49 pm

I don’t think Karol is expecting people to stick up for Coulter just pointing out that the usuals won’t because Coulter is a conservative.
Selective outrage is spot on.
BTW, She’s telling me all the time to clean up my act.

Posted by: dan the x-Republican at September 27, 2006 at 10:23 pm

So, for the record, yes Matthews and Whatshisname should be embarrassed for picking the worst reason – no matter how right they are – to attack Ann Coulter. Sort of.
You know, when I translate that it means “I don’t like her so it’s okay by me – objectify away.”
When Gore–obviously one of the smartest guys in public office in my memory–
Hahahahahahaha. So there was a “Smarty Gore” to go along with “Enviro-Gore” and “Alpha Male Gore”? I must have missed it.
I’m so glad we’re finding out how lefties really think. I guess I just don’t have to take liberal women seriously if they don’t pass the “Eric” test. It’ll make politics a lot easier if we only debate the likes of Cameron “a vote for Bush is a vote for rape” Diaz.

Posted by: Eric at September 27, 2006 at 10:34 pm

Hooray! Another conservative who sidesteps the actual content of a poster’s comments in order to crack wise on a side issue!
I should count myself lucky. At least you didn’t tell me you didn’t know what world I live in or ask me precisely what part of “War on Terror” I don’t get.

Posted by: Michael at September 28, 2006 at 12:01 am

Your comment would probably bite more if you weren’t sidestepping the whole point of Karol’s post.

Posted by: Eric at September 28, 2006 at 12:24 am

You’re incorrect. I dealt with Karol’s initial question up above. To paraphrase:
Karol asks, “Hey, gang! A shrill harridan who has built a career on vicious personal attacks and ugly namecalling has been ill-treated once on a TV show by a third-rate shmoe that nobody has ever heard of before. Are you all now going to come to the rescue of the woman who has been mistreating you all these years?”
I responded, “Not bloody likely. As she reaps, so shall she sow.” There are, in fact, some things in this life that you bring on yourself, and this is one of them.
Also: James Carville? That’s the best you can do, buddy? A guy who doesn’t even, as far as I know, have a regular media outlet to turn to? I’ll see your James Carville, my friend, and raise you a Limbaugh, a Bennett, a Savage, a Hannity, and an O’Reilly.

Posted by: Michael at September 28, 2006 at 9:00 am

I hope for the sake of everyone’s sanity that you’re not thinking that Bush is anywhere near the intellectual equal of either Gore or Clinton.
One may not like Gore’s politics, but he’s obviously the smartest guy in just about any room he’s standing in.

Posted by: Michael at September 28, 2006 at 9:07 am

Gore THINKS he’s the smartest guy in any room he’s standing in. That was his problem and the reason he was not nearly as popular as Clinton.

Posted by: dan the x-Republican at September 28, 2006 at 9:52 am

Obviously, it’s sowing and THEN reaping.
I get that mixed up every time.
I’m a doctor, Jim, not a farmer!

Posted by: Michael at September 28, 2006 at 10:37 am

Carter was smarter than all of them and a dismal failure as president (and, in his atrocious comments in the past 5 years, as a human). I don’t understand your points about who is smarter.
My point about Coulter, again, is that feminists seem to have different standards of acceptable behavior towards women they don’t like. They SAY they don’t like women being treated as pieces of meat, yet do not rush to Coulter’s defense when her male critics do just that. Attack her ideas, if you can, not her waist-line or her eye make-up. It’s the right feminist thing to do.

Posted by: Karol at September 28, 2006 at 11:06 am

You don’t see any potential benefits to having a smart leader rather than a stupid one? Granted, intelligence is no guarantee of one’s doing the right thing, and it can be used for evil (see Cheney, Dick), but, with a smart leader, at least you have a fighting chance.
When I heard that Bush didn’t know, even on the eve of his invading Iraq, that Islam had two major factions, I was stunned. It’s the whole Shiite/Sunni thing that’s biting us in the ass right now.
I guess I don’t fathom how you could not “understand [my] points about who is smarter.” How could you NOT get it? Is it that intelligence means nothing, and ideology means everything to you?

Posted by: Michael at September 28, 2006 at 7:31 pm

What’s the relevance to your argument about Coulter?

Posted by: Karol at September 29, 2006 at 2:25 am

Oh, my gosh.
All right. If you’ll actually read the posts and respond to them instead of spouting Republican talking points, you’ll see that up above I pointed out that Coulter (the topic of this thread) conducted a baseless ad hominem attack (the topic of this thread) against Gore, calling him “retarded.” I said that the guy was clearly not retarded–that he seems very intelligent, in fact–and that this is the kind of attack that has left Coulter open for attacks from others (the topic of this thread).
You turned this into a Gore thing by making some kind of snarky comment about him.
I love the way you do this kind of thing (and by “love” understand that I mean “dislike”): you refuse to deal with the substance of posts, but, instead, take a word or a phrase that is essentially tangiental to the discussion and say, “That’s stupid. What does that have to do with anything? And, oh, yeah, Clinton likes to have sex.”
The point here is that Coulter is a raging asshole. She makes crude personal attacks against lefties–including feminists–every single day of her existence. Expecting the target of many of her attacks to come to her rescue is senseless on your part. You prove nothing by making the observation, except that people are human.

Posted by: Michael at September 29, 2006 at 8:50 am

Wow, Micheal finally crosses the finish line after constantly trying to drag Karol through an unrelated debate. Senseless? It is senseless to hold people to the very values and ideology that they expect everybody else to live by? Cripes, man. What the hell kind of ideology do you subscribe to that excuses any errant behavior by simply pointing out that people are human. If the self-appointed protectors consider it wrong to objectify and be dismissive of women simply by their appearence alone, then they should be the first to come to the aid of Coulter or ANY woman subjected to such attacks regardless of ideology. To not do so proves them to not be just human, but to be very hypocritical humans. They don’t have to defend her beliefs or any of her actions, but if they honestly live by the ideology they rabidly espouse then they have a moral obligation to defend her from attacks like the one Chris Matthews used against her. Personally, I can’t stand Coulter. I don’t think she is witty or attractive. Nothing I have ever heard her say has held any value whatsoever. That being said, were I on that that particular Chris Matthews broadcast, I would’ve called him out for his abhorrent behavior. Not because I give a effin’ damn about Coulter, but because it would’ve been the right thing to do. Why am I not surprised that not only do you not understand that but have done your very best to avoid and/or dismiss it in your attempts to debate in this thread.

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at September 29, 2006 at 9:39 am

I think there is a difference between attacking someones intelligence vs their appearance. Coulter gets everything she deserves because of her actions but why wouldn’t feminists stick up for skeletorix like they would other females getting treated like “meat”.
Everyone says Quayle was a genius, didn’t do him much good in office. I guess it’s all about perception.
“Would you rather be a dummy or lose to one?”

Posted by: dan the x-Republican at September 29, 2006 at 9:54 am

[...] my linky-hopping I came across this 9/06 post @Alarming News: what passion, what argumentation. So many commenters. Actual sides. Talk about principles – [...]

Posted by: Nostalgic reading « Скрипучая беседка at March 25, 2011 at 8:53 am
Post a comment