'Hate speech' gets a free pass when it comes from the Left

[tni]

Another column from that jerk at the Star:

Sunday, August 31, 2003

By Michael J. Bowers
Star columnist

A few weeks ago, I wrote favorably about Ann Coulter. I expected complaints, and I got them. This gives me the chance to write about how the Left adheres to a double standard on "hate speech."

Coulter has indeed said a few intemperate things, but she is right more often than she is wrong. This is why she's reviled by the Left.

To my ears, her most remarkable slip came from an interview she granted the New York Observer last fall: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building."

Extreme stuff, right? Obviously a hater, right? Well, let's hold on just a second here. I think we are leaving something out: Statements by people on the Left that are just as hateful, if not more so, than anything that Coulter has ever said.

What would you say about a quick historical survey?

Read the rest at:

http://www.starnewspapers.com/star/spedit/col/31-co11.htm

[bluestateguy]

1. Well...

When it comes to Coulter I make no bones: I hate her passionately. There's no sense in apologizing for it now, is there?

[Democat]

2. She right more often than she's wrong? It's Labor Day not April Fools

Why read beyond that lie?

[Gore1FL]

36. I think it was a misprint

she is right-wing more often than she is wrong.

Not to say that the two are mutually exclusinve...

[Kbowe]

51. You can be "right" and full of hate at the same time...

In fact, that's what most Rwingers are: "right"-wing and full of hate.

[alcuno]

3. Welcome to DU, tni

This "columnist" needs to be told of Ann's latest "slip." There is a thread rattling around here somewhere about her appearance on Saturday Final on MSNBC. She said that our soldiers in Iraq are "getting their hair mussed." Hey Ann, that's if they still have a head left after the RPG attack.

[Not a robought]

4. Quote

So now maybe you can understand somewhat the frustration that would compel Ann Coulter to say that the Oklahoma City bomb would have been better placed in front of the New York Times building on West 43rd Street in Manhattan.

I'll come to understand her frustration if I ever get to be eight years old again. The maturity level is about right.

[CanuckAmok]

5. Sure...

She's stating clearly that anyone who disagrees with her should die a horrible, early death at the hands of a terrorist.

What's not to understand?

[bluestateguy]

6. Indeed

And none of these other people the author criticized ever "jokingly" called for someone's death.

[Q]

7. Bogus, flame bait thread...

...in 'defense' of the most hateful person on planet earth.

[DealsGapRider]

41. Except for...

...Julianne Malveaux.

In November 1994, USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux was discussing Justice Thomas on a PBS television show. She said: "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person."

I think the column was pretty weak, and I think Ann Coulter is an ignorant thug. But Julianne Malveaux is almost as bad, and she's a left-wing darling. I think she's a despicable person.

[indigo32]

44. one problem

Who is Julianne Malveaux? Seriously I wonder how many books she's gotten published and how many TV appearences she gets? Granted that was a dispicable thing to say (and all I know about her) and I would never condone it.. but what gets me is that ANYONE takes Coulter seriously.

[DealsGapRider]

50. She's on CNN every weekend.

I can't remember the name of the show, but I think it's the one with Jonah Goldberg from National Review and Wolf Blitzer is the moderator (I think). But I see her on TV all the time.

And she has a column frequently in USA Today.

[Yupster]

61. Are you kidding?

Julienne Malveaux is everywhere from her USA Today column to every news show and has been for years. Her daughter is a news reporter on cable too (MSNBC? can't remember which)

I would note that if there was a former Ku Klux Klansman who was a current Republican senator, he would have been forced to resign long ago, and Democrats would demonstrate everywhere he went.

Why we allow the old racist Kleagle to represent us in the senate is beyond me, but Massa Byrd is a pet peeve of mine and has been for years.

[BeachBuckeye]

49. Its absurd to call Julianne Malveaux "a left-wing darling"

I'll bet the proverbial dollar to a doughnut that few on this board even know who she is.

[w4rma]

8. Coutler's a Nazi. Coutler gets on TV and promotes hate.

And her supporters don't expect that she'll get the same thing right back at her from the folks she promotes hate against?

No. I think her supporters want her opponents to self-censor themselves so that she can keep on promoting her fascism.

[vixengrl]

9. It's a fairly weak argument he makes,

if his point is, well, Ann Coulter says mean things, and, gosh darn it all, liberals say mean things, too! For many of his examples of mean ("make-up with a trowel"--ooh, ow, why aim so low? When it's easy enough to call Harris a theif who helped subvert the democratic process...you don't have to *hurt*!), you could point to any number of things Coulter has said which literally endorse the deaths of numerous people. "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" ring a bell? Or Her implying that John Walker Lindh should be killed so that liberals are aware that they, too can be killed (and the sensible, humanitarian Ann Coulter wouldn't mind a smidge would seem to be the implication).

And the strangest is saying that "barking mad" is somehow racist. Thomas is barking mad. Bush is barking mad. Ann Coulter is barking mad. And this dude is howl at the moon barking mad. It isn't racial.

While I can't say that invective hasn't been used by both sides, liberals and conservatives, it's interesting that he used examples from several different people, in some cases I found obscure, when you could pick things said by your Coulters, Savages (neater in the plural, isn't it?) Limbaughs and other, higher profile conservative...ummm...

Somebody give me a *nice* thing to call them that doesn't get me put on Mr. Bowers' list.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

22. Call them angry, partisan fools..

that's the best I can do. Bowers will still put you on the list though, I fear.

[Generic Other]

57. It seemed she went out of her way to find a race neutral insult

To call a sexual harasser a "dog" is racist?

on edit: I didn't know I was bashing whites when I labelled Tony Blair a "poodle."

[Yupster]

62. Poodle means white yes

Sheltie and collie also.

Shepherd and Husky are insults for hispanics.

Terriers are insults for blacks, unless you specify "toy" terrier which means you're insulting Pacific islanders.

Any questions just ask. I have these all worked out.

[Dookus]

10. The author

also takes at face value Coulter's wrong assertion that Evan Thomas is the son of Norman Thomas, a socialist presidential candidate.

Evan Thomas is the son of Evan Thomas. He's a junior.

His GRANDFATHER was Norman Thomas. A simple fact to check, but the author (as well as Coulter) apparently didn't bother.

[GCP]

11. He's got it all wrong about "Barking Mad"

Here's my e-mail to him.

"Barking mad" is a very common term used in Britain to signify someone who is completely insane.

Whether you agree or not with Dowd's depiction of Thomas as insane, she was not comparing him to a dog.

[Birthmark]

12. Mr. Columnist...

...appears to not know what hate speech is. No surprise there.

[uptohere]

15. well, maybe so

but Coulter's comments relative to the Arab leader's deaths and followers conversion to Christianity are irony while the post here the other day had us needing to shoot someome in the head.

Johnny Walker the Taliban boy could reasonably be considered for death so thats not unrealistic either.

Blowing people's heads off as a response to differences of opinion are a little extreme.

She's just trying to make a buck being an entertainer, whats our rationale ?

Just a little devil's advocate work so maybe we do a little thinking. I don't agree with any of that stuff and I hope you don't either.

[arcane1]

18. "in order to physically intimidate liberals..."

quote:

The largest US gathering of right-wing political activists cheered the remarks of Ann Coulter, a columnist and television commentator, who called for the execution of John Walker Lindh as a political measure to intimidate liberals.

“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty,” Coulter said in an address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

Coulter was unapologetic afterwards, claiming that her statement was a “huge hit with the audience.”


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/coul-f27.shtml

[uptohere]

25. Johnny Walker IS a traitor

I don't object to giving them the traditional punishment.

Don't mistake the fact that he was not killed with him NOT being a traitor. This was a CIA descision. He's being kept alive as a potential future agent for the US of A.

But back to your point. Ms Coulter clearly sees a lot of traitors out there or at least claims to in order to sell books. One reason that they make it a very public point of killing traitors throughout history is the effect it has on others considering it or anything near it.

Again, its an actual crime or potential thereof as opposed to political differences of opinion.

Your last line really is quite telling "huge hit with the audience". She is an entertainer even if she doesn't dance or tell jokes.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftyandproud]

34. ...

I'm afraid walker was doing a bit more than "worshipping". He took up arms against the USA (literally). I'm afraid this does qualify as treason if he is found guilty.

[MrPrax]

52. You Ain't Left...

"I'm afraid walker was doing a bit more than "worshipping". He took up arms against the USA (literally). I'm afraid this does qualify as treason if he is found guilty."

Maybe he was just defending Islam?
or maybe you seem to feel that 'citizenship' is the highest individual calling (and American citizenship rises above the rest)--this notion certainly places liberators and militants fighting against their own corrupt systems in jeopardy...

No real Lefty would blubber about 'state' labelling

[coda]

39. So maybe she could consider Robert Hanson

whose treason far outweighs what that dumbass kid did.

Would it take you more than two seconds to figure out whose collaboration could be more harmful, a kid from California or that conservative whose years of access could damage the whole agency?

She called for the execution of kid who knew little of anything except his own pathetic little world, not because of his treason but to intimidate liberals. What, intimidate them from dealing with terrorists, like Reagan promised the American people and the world he would never do?

In the 80's, Republicans spent 7 years arming Saddam to the teeth, throwing in bio and chem tech for good measure while concurrently recruiting, arming and training bin laden and every other extremist nut from _ every _ arab country they lure them from. What in the Hell did they think would happen when these people dragged that kind of knowledge and training back to their own countries?

I'd say that was 7 years the Republican's have on liberals. It sure as Hell wasn't Clinton selling them arms. The only one dealing with Saddam in the 90's was Cheney's Halliburton(among a few others). He said in the 2000 campaign that he didn't, but you know Halliburton is a big comapany so you see how it would be easy to forget something like that, right?


She's an entertainer alright. Bet those kids in Iraq would get a big guffaw about the one-liner about their "mussed hair".

She makes a joke about one of Bush's cabinet members being killed (Mineta) and then gets rave reviews at C-PAC and other conservative gatherings by suggesting the killing of a traitor to intimidate liberals.

Ann Coulter and Barbara Olsen's hatefulness and nastiness is what made Hillary Clinton's Senate win a slam dunk. It would have been much more difficult without them.

I have no desire for Ann Coulter to shut up. I only suggest that she turn it up a couple of notches.

[Aaron]

40. Got some links to go with those claims? (n/t)

[indigo32]

45. She is not sold that way

People do take her seriously. I consider her talk to be dangerous.

[prolesunited]

28. Very unfair comparison

You can't equate Ann Coulter, who has a syndicated media platform, to some lone poster on DU. And you didn't bother to add that those who posted on that thread called him on the stupidity and wrongness of his comment. It also was very quickly pulled by the admins here -- just a few details that you decided to leave out.

Coulter's fans applaud her over-the-top rhetoric and it is allowed by her editors to remain in the public sphere.

I also don't buy that because she's trying to make a buck that it's OK or somehow harmless. I believe that those who are in the national spotlight should be held to a higher standard and have an obligation to enhance the national discourse. These were our standards at some time.

I'm not talking about repression of free speech. Coulter and her ilk have every right to spew all of the hatred that they want — I just don't understand why they are given a national platform in which to do it. Well, actually I do. Everyone wants to make a buck and damn the public good. In my mind, THAT does not give her a pass.

Collectively, this anger and hatred and divisiveness is having an effect on our nation's soul. Not to get too "out there," but when our world is filled with such violent words and deeds, is it any wonder that we have sniper attacks, school shootings, work place shootings, road rage, etc.

So, yes, it does matter and I don't find any entertainment value in it.

[uptohere]

29. I'm no fan of any of this crap either

I would appreciate a little more civility across the boards but this is what America has come to. You are damn right to note that the effect on this country is huge and terrible. Get a little closer to home (although the sniper was WAY too close to my home) with the demeaning sexual content of hip hop culture and the ever bar lowering of entertainment (movies, TV, rassling, poor sportsmanship at all levels). Its sickening.

My Mom said we should ignore this sort of thing and it will go away. Insted we lash back. It sure as heck doesn't go away doing that. Its no more OK to refer to Coulter as a nazi or cross dresser or the thousand other things said about her, Limbaugh et al and what the right does.

But so it goes. I wish that it would at least not be tolerated here.

[haymaker]

31. You want civility now, after the damage is done.

Fuck that. Typical right-wing POV, can dish it out but cannot take it.

[prolesunited]

33. OK

You call off Ann Coulter and I'll call off the posters here. ;-)

You still have not addressed the logical fallacy of the two situations being equivalent and the fact that when people do go over the top here that they are swiftly dealt with.

So, you're point is that these RW pundits should be able to say whatever they want with impunity and we should be good little liberals and turn the other cheek? As nice as that sounds, we've been doing that far too long. In fact, RW are now using it as a tactic to quiet us down — you know, appeal to our better natures, remind us that we are better than that. That's a good strategy, though, take your enemies strength and turn it into a weakness.

Guess what? I don't think it's going to work anymore. If we play nice and fair — like we had been doing for so long — does that mean the RW is suddenly going to hold our hands and sing kum-ba-yah? I don't think so. No, they will kick us harder and laugh at our "weakness."

So, do I think you're idea for a truce here is a nice idea? Sure. But it ain't happening here. They ARE the enemy.

[Isome]

38. Close the piehole about "hip hop culture"...

How old are the people who repeat that drivel, 12, 20, over 30??

Before the lament about hiphop and rap there was long-haired rock-n-rollers and the demeaning portrayals of women, before that there was jazz... Every flipping musical era has been described as the corruptor of youth. Stand down! The youth of today imitate adults of today, as it was and always has been. If there's more violence among the young today, look around and you'll see adults perpetrating more violence today. No matter how you package that violence (war, police brutality), kids see it for what it is.

As far as piously taking the highroad with the cheap labor conservative radicals, some do, some don't. I've yet to hear a left leaning talking head engage in the type of juvenile namecalling that's used here solely out of frustration, as is regularly seen on television by those neo-cons. I have seen an enormous amount of self-censorship on DU though. The same won't be seen on blogs, ezines or messageboards of those on the rabid right wing.

[coda]

42. Maybe you should look to the source.

What you see here most of the time is individual displays of frustration and anger and yeah I'll grant you outright hate, but nothing concerted.

Go to open secrets sometime and look at campaign donations. Look at how much money they've taken in and consider what it buys, how it's spent.

I have a fairly braod range of people of whom I get e-mails and all the urban legends and lies about Clintons and other Dems, all the trash, the form form letter crap about Bush praying with someone that gets debunked in Urban Legends. It runs about 100 to 1 Republican.

It's organised hate and division built on hate and corporate money.

And this "comapassionate conservatism" comes from the top down, there's no need to pretend otherwise


"I think our worldview that I'm trying to articulate is compassionate
conservatism. When you believe in the sanctity of life, you believe
that people are created in God's image, you are compassionate to them
because they are made by God, not by nature or some other --they are
made by God. So you look at them in a compassionate way. That is
George W. Bush."
--Tom DeLay


"This whole thing about not kicking someone when they are down is
bullshit. Not only do you kick him - you kick him until he passes
out - then beat him over the head with a baseball bat - then roll him
up in an old rug - and throw him off a cliff into the pounding surf
below!!!!"

--Michael Scanlon, Press Secretary to Tom DeLay

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

13. Is this Man Insane?

First of all, his statement that "Coulter is right more than she's wrong," is a biased value judgment, and his contention that the only bad thing Coulter said was about McVeigh bombing the NY Times is silly. Bowers has been eating the crazy fruit, if he suggests that all conservatives are somehow modest decent-talking folks, while liberals are haters. His own screed is hate speech against liberals, and the examples he uses for left-wing hate, are not only weak, they're wholly without merit. The only problematic one is Julianne Malveaux's commnt about Clarence Thomas. That was harsh. What was racist about Dowd's comments? She didn't call him a dog, she called him insane. It's amazing how conservatives can invent claims of racism when there's none there, yet openly defend blatant racism, from the likes of Trent Lott and Coulter?

P.S. Does this man ignore the likes of Michael savage, David Horowitz, etc. He himself tried to insinuate that Evan Thomas was a socialist. :wtf:

[oasis]

14. Ann pines for the return of McCarthism. KKK, Nazis, Christian Identity

skinheads all act on their hate. Free pass my ass.

[searchingforlight]

16. This is a joke.

<snip>

"No conservative would ever get away with such a statement. Not only that, no conservative would want to get away with it, because he would never say it in the first place."

Has this person ever listened to FAUX or read any of the right-wing books?

PLEASE.

[rock]

17. I sure am glad she's on their side

Welcome. Post some more.

[VOX]

19. "Coulter has indeed said a few intemperate things????????????"

She's made a FUCKING career out of it!

Let's put all sanity aside for a moment and look at specific examples Bowers cites. I know it's hard, but just pretend for a moment, and take them at face value.

There's not ONE "Left"-originated piece of so-called "hate speech" that Bowers quotes that can hold a candle to the NY Times building bombing inference made by Coulter.

Is Bowers remotely aware of how many *innocent* people would die if some wingnut were to act on Coulter's "intemperate" remark?

What a crock -- the Left dosen't get a "pass" on anything these days.

[kodi]

20. dont lose sight that the right wing is now on their heels, not toes

they are now having to defend themselves and its great news. it means that they are no longer able to simply spew out their vile bile without repercussions.

having to defend themselves prevents them from attacking. it is a defensive position.

you can't lose a match when the other guy has to handle the ball on his side of the net.

fire away and make them run ragged on the baseline.

franken, connolson(sic?), palast, et al. ARE having an affect. the pressure must be kept up on the lying liars.

and it looks just fine to me that someone like howard dean knows how to rush the net and stick it down the right wing's throat.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. no thank you

I have no intention of giving hits to that site. I hope no one else does either.
Coulter is not inportant

[prolesunited]

23. Very curious

You've already posted this in Editorials. Did you not get enough of a reaction or was that simply a test to see if you could post a slam against the Left and not have it deleted? BTW, it is against the rules to spam DU with multiple threads about the same topic in different forums.

For everyone else, grendelsuncle posted this Friday:

I'm finishing up a book right now, so I haven't had time to post, though I have been keeping up on reading the board. Awhile back I told you guys about a project over at Fox (John Gibson's show was named) where they would begin scanning the internet for leftist/liberal sites and show what we're up to. Andy Sullivan did it a while back (which is what prompted my predictions--I don't feel like searching for the original thread, so take my word for it or go find it on your own ). Like I said, I have a couple of friends in low places, editors, some ad stuff, just geeky grammar hounds. But they give me copies of the faxes they see. This is how I know about the attempts to go after the "fringe left." The lastest Byron York screed and its coverage by Faux and Brit Hume is testing the waters. They are attempting to take a page out of Clinton's playbook. They hope to convince their viewers that all of the attacks on Bush are created in fringe "think tanks"/internet sites. I am told that Gibson's show is still thinking about developing the "net watch" segment. Watch very carefully: the cable channels are always talking about Dean's web presence. If you notice, the right wingers seem to be singing his praises of finding new people. Just wait. This is where the narrative will come to fruition. They will tie Dean's rise to the internet. But who exactly is on the internet? Well, these lefty kooks, no doubt.

It must have been two months ago that I gave you the original heads-up. The people at Fox are still testing it out. Expect an article or two out of the Weekly Standard. Takebackthemedia.com, of course, has already been targeted. Andy Sullivan has already posted posts from DU. It will continue. If it gains traction with the viewers, it will become a regular addition to one of Faux's programs (unless Scarborough beats them to it--I've heard nothing about this).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=247546

If we look at what's been out there this week — slamming Take Back the Media in New Republic and Fox and other similar sites as Bush haters, this article, CSPAN segment today on "Who's meaner -- liberals or conservatives?" — they're firing up the Wulitzer.

I'm sure we'll see more of this. They see that Americans like Bush but dislike most of his policies. By personalizing the valid criticisms of his policies — you know, by those "Bush haters" — they hope to inoculate him. Those mean liberals are picking on such a nice Christian man instead of having people actually pay attention to the criticisms of his policies.

In addition to trying to characterize those who criticize Bush's policies as radical fringe leftists, it also takes some of the attention away from their RW haters, who are after all just defending themselves.

[tkmorris]

27. Thanks for stating this

After reading through this thread I was apalled that the obviousness of this tactic seemed to have been missed. This whole post is nothing more than an opportunity to post anti-left noise.

Look folks, the media is chock full of anti-left diatribes. That isn't news, and 99 times out of 100 it isn't worth discussing. When you see that sort of thing get posted on this board inviting comment red flags should go up all over the place. I know how paranoid that sounds but the fact is that is exactly the kind of tactics these people employ. I'd rather live in a world where I could leave my doors unlocked too but I aint stupid enough to pretend I do.

[Not a robought]

35. TV hates the internet

[gulliver]

24. Pathetic logic.

Ann Coulter is one person. You can't dredge up a dozen statements by a dozen different (and mostly relatively unknown) people and use that to justify a dozen statements made by a single despicable high-profile ass.

That's ridiculous logic. But of course it is only meant to be logical to idiots anyway. Just more half-wit sh*t for the sh*t-eaters. They slurp down that kind of drivel.

[tinnypriv]

26. See my sig

:)

[Mz Pip]

32. Not one of his examples

of left wing hate speech include a wish for the deaths of hundreds, like Anthrax's wish that McVeigh hit the NY Times building.


His bar is set pretty low for the left.

MzPip
:dem:

[Robin Hood]

37. Why are you here repeating these right wing lies? Huh?! Why?!!

I see that you have not responded to anyone's reply here. Typical chickenhawk bullshit.

There is no one on the left that had wished that Timmy boy Mcveigh should have taken his little republican nazi bomb to the new york times building. She sure got a pass for that, in fact that cowardly little bitch has gotten a pass for every lie that comes out of her filthy mouth.

Here's how you dumb motherfuckers support the troops.

Anne Coulter: "The troops in iraq are getting their hair mussed". i don't see her volunteering to get her scrawny ass blown up in the dessert, so why does she get away with this hate speech? BTW, way to support the troops Anne, you skank.

I suspect that you will not reply to this as you are probably just as much of a chickeshit as she is. Fucking ignorant turds, go to hell.

[bigtree]

43. She calculates

that in our opposition, we will spread her diatribe and elevate her rant into our political discussion. Her words of hate sell her books and we promote her by repeating them. The best thing we to do about her is ignore her.

[uptohere]

48. she is an entertainer trying to make a buck bitch and she wins

ignore her and she goes away.

You can decide for yourself if you prefer to enrich her or obsolete her.

[Terwilliger]

46. This article is utter crap...Evan Thomas? A liberal? In any sense?

The guy loses credibility right there.

[Starpass]

47. Ann is just an entertainer---ummm, like Rush Limbaugh, etc.

They do no harm do they??? They not only ratchet up hatred in this nation, they play to poor slobs who get absolutely nothing from republicans but marked for economic extinction and drum up their innate hatred so that they no longer think about their own or their family's welfare and support repuke candidates. They are the ones who are paying and are going to pay dearly in the future...as Ann and her ilk count their money and sun themselves in a life of luxery. These are the truly evil people on planet earth who take up space and contribute nothing. Useless gasbags.

[userdave2061]

53. The barking mad is no problem but...

"The dissent is a clinical study of a man who has been driven barking mad by the beneficial treatment he has received."

The "beneficial treatment" sounds racist to me.

[monchie]

54. I had to respond to this guy:

Mr. Bowers:

A few points regarding your column defending the most definitely barking mad Ann Coulter:

1. Norman Thomas is not Evan Thomas’s father. He is Evan’s grandfather.

2. While the term “barking mad” may in fact be a metaphor that refers to a dog, it’s also a commonplace piece of modern British slang. I’m not sure I’d agree with Maureen Dowd about Clarence Thomas—I didn’t read that entire column—but having read the recent dissent in the sodomy law case before the Supreme Court, as well as news stories about recent speeches, I can most definitively declare Justice Antonin Scalia as stark, raving, barking mad.

3. As much as I hate to defend Howell Raines—I hope never again to read one of his pompous, self-righteous, intellectually dishonest editorials excoriating President and Senator Clinton over the phony Whitewater “scandal”—I wouldn’t exactly term “Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it” as hate speech. If you’re trying to insinuate that he’s making a slur about President Reagan’s Alzheimer’s, you should be reminded that the quote was from a book published in 1993 while the public announcement of Mr. Reagan’s Alzheimer’s came in 1994.

4. I’m certainly not going to defend Julianne Malveaux’s remarks about Clarence Thomas. But then again, I’d never even heard of Julianne Malveaux till I read your column. It’s not like she’s constantly appearing all over the cable TV bloviate-a-thons like a certain barking mad blonde does.

5. Oh, and I notice you didn’t mention the remarks Ann “she is right more often than she is wrong” Coulter made just in the past month about Gray Davis and Al Gore: “Both were veterans, after a fashion, of Vietnam, which would make a Gore-Davis presidential ticket the only compelling argument yet in favor of friendly fire.” Barking mad indeed!

[TahitiNut]

55. If I wanted to read more of this intellectually bankrupt crap ...

... I'd join FreeRepublic.com. :puke:

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, it's the behavior, stupid. This constant obsession with deifying or demonizing the person based upon selective, often misrepresented, limited portrayals of something said or done is dysfunctional nonsense.

One's personal principles are validly based only upon what one believes and values, not upon whom one believes and values. This obsessive focus on the person is a symptom of authoritarian indoctrination.

I am increasingly reminded why I'm opposed to partisan "thinking" -- or lack thereof.

Too many people (of all self-affixed ideological labels) seem to think only Satan is 'electable' and therefore worthy of support -- a more ethically and morally bankrupt political posture cannot be imagined. Sieg Fucking Heil! :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

56. And a flat out lie....

"Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas (whose father ran for president on the Socialist ticket four times)"
Evan Thomas is not Norman Thomas' son....and Norm ran eight times.

[Blue_Chill]

58. So then what is this guy saying? RW hate OK LW hate not OK?

I stand against all hate speech, I find it disgusting. Anyone who does would not claim Ann Coulter is right more often then she is wrong, the women is hate grown in the shape a skinny female human.

She wants kill or convert Muslims - I guess genocide is no biggie?

Also let's not forget that wether or not McCarthy was right about the communist in Hollywood the bill of rights allows Americans to associate with this group.

So fuck Bowers and his bullshit story.

[RedSox02]

59. Look how easily this guy gets offended

He was furious at Maureen Dowd for saying that Clarence Thomas got "barking mad" at Affirmative action. He then says it is clear thta Dowd was comparing Thomas to a dog. Give me a break. He basically concludes that what Maureen Dowd said was worse than what Ann Coulter said (about bombing the New York Times). That is absurd.

[ButterflyBlood]

60. any examples where someone suggested bombing and killing someone?

still got awhile to go before they can top Coulter.

[Droopy]

63. I read his examples of liberal hate speech

They were weak. One one of them he has the facts wrong and on another he deliberately misinterperates a quote to make it sound worse than it is. The guy is full of shit.

[Isome]

64. Oh' good night...

I can't believe I emailed that clown. He responded yesterday. I may post my email & his response here, when I open it. I haven't steeled myself for the barrage of bullshit that's probably in it, so it's sitting unopened in my inbox.