Coulter Accuses Democrats of Rape, Slander and Treason

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, May 22, 2004.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    Last week on Fox, Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton a "scumbag," and labeled him as a rapist. On MSNBC, she accused both Nancy Pelosi and Edward Kennedy of slander, and Kennedy and Michael Moore of treason.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200405210006

    So the question I've got is this: why is this woman invited to speak on cable network programs like Hannity and Colmes, and Scarbrough Country, instead of being denounced by everyone in the country who's in possession even the smallest shred of decency and sense?
     
  2. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    Ratings? Maybe for the same reason Stern is popular, people tune in to see what "shocking" thing she'll say next. America is the country that has made "The Swan" a hit TV show.


    Lethal
     
  3. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #3
    She overlooked the manslaughter conviction Kennedy should've received for that little lake incident.
     
  4. professor macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    #4
    Maybe it's because they (Fox, etc.) think there are always some idiots whose attention they can direct away from the havoc George Bush is wreaking in the world these days.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    perhaps it's because airing the right-wing ann coulter gives most other commentators leeway to call themselves moderate

    "i've never advocated nuking the middle east, therefore i am moderate. q.e.d."
     
  6. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    Well perhaps, but Coulter already has a soapbox of her own. I'm asking how she gets herself invited onto programs hosted by others. What are we being told here by the hosts of these programs -- that Coulter is a legitimate political commentator?
     
  7. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #7
    More "moderates":

    Crush the Insurgents in Iraq

    By Lewis E. Lehrman and William Kristol

    Sunday, May 23, 2004; Page B07

    "The United States will lead, or the world will shift into neutral." Wise words from President Bush on May 20 to congressional Republicans. From the beginning, the president has made clear that we must lead and win the war on terror. To win the strategic war, we must of course win tactical battles. The central battle in the war on terror is Iraq. Unless we win that battle, we will see America itself, and the world, shift disastrously into neutral in the broader war.

    In every war there are crucial turning moments, hard to foresee. They often occur in the midst of public despair about war prospects. Today there is considerable despair over the situation in Iraq. But despair existed in Britain and the United States after the fall of Singapore in World War II -- before the U.S. Navy's astonishing destruction of a Japanese carrier force in 1942 at Midway. In August 1864 there was a widespread belief in the North that the Civil War could not be won. President Abraham Lincoln believed that the war stalemate and the terrible casualties could lead to the election of his opponent, George McClellan, who might repudiate the Emancipation Proclamation and sue for peace on the basis of the status quo ante -- a free North, a slave South.

    But Lincoln pressed forward. He argued that "no attempt at negotiation with the insurgent leader could result in any good. . . . He affords us no excuse to deceive ourselves. . . . Between him and us the issue is distinct, simple and inflexible. It is an issue which can only be tried by war, and decided by victory."

    Then Atlanta fell to Union troops in the late summer of 1864. Lincoln was reelected, with 80 percent of the soldier vote. Shortly thereafter came the 13th Amendment, the abolition of slavery, the surrender of the Confederacy and the beginning of a long process of Reconstruction. Lincoln's war aims were ultimately realized . . .

    . . . So any armed insurgency opposed to a peaceful transition in Iraq must be destroyed. Fallujah must be conquered and terrorists denied safe haven in Fallujah and other centers of insurrection. Moqtada Sadr's militia must be rendered powerless. This will have to be accomplished primarily by American and British military power -- however useful various political efforts can be, however useful Iraqi and coalition forces can be. Then a sovereign Iraq, with continued U.S. military and other assistance, will be able to move ahead with the task of political and economic reconstruction.

    Such decisive military victories in Iraq would be respected by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike. The new Iraqi government could then depend more confidently on Iraqi and American police and military power until it is ready to provide fully for its own police and military security . . .

    . . . .Meanwhile, as after William T. Sherman's victory in Atlanta, the reelection of the president at home would follow -- with a mandate to carry on, and to win, the global war against terror.

    Lewis E. Lehrman, a former Republican candidate for governor of New York, is a partner in the investment firm L.E. Lehrman & Co. William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.

    And the South really loved the North after Atlanta, didn't they? In fact, 140 after the Civil War, the North and the South still love each other, right?

    During the Albigensian Crusade, after the Battle of Béziers, when asked what to do with the residents of the city, Arnald Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux famously gave the order to "burn them all, God will know his own".

    I guess these "moderates" would give the same response.
     
  8. Mason macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    #8
    As well as the one Laura Bush should have received, too. Right?



    P.S. Coulter should be careful about calling someone a rapist; falsely accusing someone of a crime is per se slander.
     
  9. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #9
    You mean like accusing Bush of AWOL or Desertion?
     
  10. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #10
    both h&c and scarbrough have little sense and decency...ntm, journalistic integrity. sadly, there is a portion of the population who enjoy the mean-spirited lies of people like her, rush and savage. these listeners would rather be spoonfed tripe than do any thinking for themselves...

    and as for coulter, my cats routinely cough up something far more worthwhile than her pointless ramblings. she confuses emotionally fueled vindictiveness with well-researched incisiveness. funny that she abhores the freedom to question our government while using that same freedom to denounce those that disagree with her political views. she wishes she was like mccarthey but she's actually more like roy cohn...repressed, depressed and inevitably doomed.
     
  11. Mason macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    #11
    Moore shouldn't have done that, I agree. But that doesn't excuse all of Coulter's statements.
     
  12. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Not necessarily. In the US, slander has to meet a stringent three-part test to be subject to a civil action: The accusation has to be untrue, the person who says it has to know it's untrue, and it has to cause demonstrable harm. Slander is very, very difficult to prove in a US courtroom. An aggressively vicious person like Ann Coulter snipes behind the protective cover of the First Amendment.

    Once again, I'm led back to my original question. Why would any credible television network provide her with even a minute of airtime to spout her nastiness? And the second part of my question: where are the denunciations of these lies?
     
  13. Mason macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    #13
    Slander per se doesn't mean that you will automatically win the case. When someone is falsely accused of a serious crime (i.e., murder, rape, kidnapping, burglary, etc), damages are presumed.

    In this instance, there is no evidence to support Coulter's statement that Clinton is a rapist. As such, damages are presumed and Clinton would have a fairly easy case against her - if he chose to persue such an option (though I doubt he would).
     
  14. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    I'm not familiar w/Coulter but if she already has a "following" that following will tune in to other shows she is on. And people who dislike Coulter will tune in as well to she was she has to say (so they can gripe about it later), and hopefully to see her get "shot down." To stay w/my past example Stern has his own show but is relatively frequently a guest on other people's shows. I don't think they are neccesarily<sp?> saying she is a legit poltical commentator, but she does sound like she'd be good for ratings (at least for right now).


    Lethal
     
  15. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #15
    Coulter is the very worst of the "lying liars," as Al Franken calls them.

    She is so outrageous, I really have to question whether the woman is mentally stable.

    Which, if she isn't, brings us back to IJ's question of why this woman is even on television.
     
  16. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #16
    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp

    I don't know I like her writing.
     
  17. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #17
    I'm not sure but isn't this a slanderous statement?

    And speaking of Clinton being a rapist there is some validity to it.
    http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/10/2/43829
     
  18. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #18
    For better or worse you aren't a rapist until you are convicted by a jury. At least legally.
     
  19. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Coulter also wrote a book that attempted to rehabilitate the image of Joseph McCarthy.
     
  20. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #20
    As I can't comment on Coulters' comments more than has already been said, I add two questions:
    1) Wouldn't you agree, she is far and away the most attractive of these extreme right-wing pundits? and..
    2) Do you believe she means what she says, or has just realized that this kind of inflammatory rhetoric will make her rich and powerful? (the same question could be asked of Savage, Limbaugh, Stern etc...) and as an attractive woman, she fills a niche in the market?

    I guess that is three questions...I have my opinions, but I am curious as to the thoughts of others on this matter...I mean, we ARE talking about her...in someones' book that means something...
     
  21. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #21
    1. No.
    2. I don't think she's all that inflammatory or doing anything other than "just her job" Same as Limbaugh. Savage is a conservatives liberal. Meaning he uses liberal tactics. He yells and screams, goes to extremes, Keeps his mic turned up compared to the incoming calls so as to step on their end of the conversation, uses a 11 second delay (most people have 7) to silence anyone who actually might be able to beat him in an intellectual argument. Stern simply says outloud what most adult men think, but know they shouldn't and most teenagers only say when no women are around.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    Speak for yourself.
     
  23. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    Thank you. It may please Stern's fans to think that he speaks for all men, but in reality, he is a spokesman only for the knuckle-draggers among us.
     
  24. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #24
    I agree with you, and I would say the exact same thing about Susan Estridge
     
  25. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    As Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."

    If a person makes a habit of dropping their pants in public, they'll be talked about. But will they be invited to appear in polite company? Coulter gains her attention by engaging in the verbal equivalent of dropping her pants in public, yet she's invited onto national TV shows, where's she's actually encouraged to do her act. This suggests to me that the programs on which she appears have extremely low standards of legitimacy.
     

Share This Page