| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer03801
Starlite Member
Username: Jennifer03801
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 04:03 am: | 
|
Countering Coulter: How the Mainstream Media Got It Wrong
By Charles E. Anderson
Conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter has once again become the center of controversy. While speaking at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on March 2, Coulter quipped that she had planned to make statements regarding Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but she would have "to go into rehab" if she used the word "faggot."
While such language from a celebrity of Coulter's purported caliber would ordinarily be shocking, it is only the latest in a long list of outrageous and insulting comments the author has made. In her latest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Coulter alleges that the widows of four New York City firemen are enjoying their husbands' deaths because they are using their First Amendment rights to free speech by calling for more thorough investigations of the 9/11 tragedies.
Coulter also made a stir at last year's CPAC when she twice referred to Muslims as "ragheads." Coulter's syndicated column and books all contain similar outlandish accusations, often without any supporting evidence. Though many organizations and individuals have been quick to say "Shame on Ann Coulter," in the wake of her latest CPAC statements, the mainstream media's coverage was far from objective and left the average viewer with the impression that Coulter's comedic stylings have validity in the political arena. Coulter defended her comments March 5 on the Fox News talk show "Hannity and Colms," calling the remark "a schoolyard taunt." Co-host Sean Hannity was quick to point out that Coulter had "poked fun" at other Democratic candidates - Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama - as well as former vice president turned documentary filmmaker Al Gore. Hannity went on to imply that Coulter's comments were acceptable since she does not hold public office. He contended that Coulter simply uses satire and humor to underscore her philosophy. Yet, Coulter's ten-minute speech at CPAC presented little more than a stand-up comedy routine that provided no insight on conservative philosophy or principles. It did not inform or inspire; it merely criticized, defiled and defamed prominent Democrats. While Coulter's pithy, satiric remarks drew laughs from her primarily college-age audience, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, CPAC's primary sponsor, sought to distance himself from Coulter's comments by issuing the following statement on March 5, 2007:
"Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification, let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech."
If that were the case, then why was Coulter invited to speak at CPAC in spite of her use of hate speech at the 2006 convention, and why didn't the mainstream media ask that question of CPAC's sponsors? Moreover, why, in spite of her abusive and crass style of commentary, have the media continued to invite Coulter on the talk show circuit at all? The fact that mainstream media outlets such as CNN and Fox News both invited Coulter to "tell her side" of the CPAC incident gives the false impression that there are two equally credible sides of debate on this issue. On neither network was Coulter's appearance balanced by a "liberal" counterpart of equal stature, nor is "her side" credible in light of her history of derogatory comments and grandstanding. Additionally, both networks debated whether "faggot" qualifies as a "hate term" and both networks clearly missed the point. Regardless of whether the term was "hate speech" or simply a "schoolyard taunt" as Coulter claims, resorting to name-calling is simply more suited to a grade school playground than a nationally renowned convention such as CPAC. Coulter's antics were at best sophomoric comedy and at worst represent a reckless disregard for human decency that has become all too common in contemporary American politics; shame on the mainstream media for not saying so.
Total Fatalities - 3,190 Total Wounded - 23,417
Diseases Medical Air Transport Required - 18,704
Total Medical Air Transported - 32,544
Total Non-Mortal Casualties - 54,910
|
Aimstraight
Starlite Member
Username: Aimstraight
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 01:27 pm: |
|
If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?
Ann Coulter
Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.
Ann Coulter
Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.
Ann Coulter
Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.
Ann Coulter
___________________________________________________________________
Isn't she great |
Jennifer03801
Starlite Member
Username: Jennifer03801
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 01:55 pm: |
|
You do have the strangest heroes.
Total Fatalities - 3,190 Total Wounded - 23,417
Diseases Medical Air Transport Required - 18,704
Total Medical Air Transported - 32,544
Total Non-Mortal Casualties - 54,910
|
Aimstraight
Starlite Member
Username: Aimstraight
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 03:00 pm: |
|
Jen Jen we all need Heroes. Jen Jen your not my hero but your special. Your a great poet. Their are many excellent poets here. |
|
