First of all, this kind of diversion (the "b-b-but Clinton..!") variety is a terrible rhetorical technique, but I'll bite because I find it interesting here.
Seeing as how Maher's comments took place this weekend, diversion would hardly be an appropriate definition. Pulling up Coulter quotes from 2002, well that might be more appropriate.
certainly you don't think it's completely unreasonable to believe that his death could have prevented certain events from occuring.
Obviously but when I, and I imagine others, imitate liberals with the kind of dripping sarcasm that would have them compare President Bush or his administration to that of Nazi Germany, I do so, for the most part, to make a point. When you say things like a reasonable and intelligent person would advocate terrorist assassination plots against our nation's leaders, I feel much more disturbed about the very sanity of the left-wing movement in our nation. You seem to act as though Maher's comments were made completely oblivious to the effect they would have, even for a radical like Maher. Even the very basic criteria for the sentiment, that without Cheney "certain events," namely the military effort in Afghanistian, wouldn't have happened, is based on nothing more than impossible assumptions.
Rest assured Cheney was not the only person in America willing to intervene militarily in Afghanistan in.
That's even if the case were that Maher WAS unaware that his comments would be taken as they were. I don't think that's the case, and I don't think any honest person would willingly accept that rationale either. The truth would be that Maher knew exactly what he was saying, seeing as how these shows are given things to talk about beforehand even though some of the commentary may or may not be extemporaneous.
First of all, implying that Edwards is gay is absurd at best and offensive at worst
Exactly, an offensive slur that is out of place for any pundit who wants his/her ideas to be taken seriously. That goes without saying. Calling the notion absurd is a little strong as Edwards has a persona that is knowingly meterosexual. Of course, that doesn't excuse the comment, but I'd be hardpressed to eliminate the idea entirely.
second of all... the f-word was used. I'm not a huge fan of these little arbitrary cultural landmines, but when you step on one solely to be an asshole, you deserve the fallout you get.
Which is why I was content with the way Dean, McCain, and Giuliani handled it. She did deserve to be impugned for this comment and others she has made, that wasn't the reason I even bothered to make the post though. Ann Coulter will be Ann Coulter but contrasting her comments with Bill Maher's comments were what set me off. Bill Maher is a big proponent of being and asshole for it's own sake as well, and I know for a fact he doesn't shy away from dirty language when he does it either.
On the other hand, the NY Times is a civilian entity which has probably not been instrumental to thousands of dead Americans, which is a much more tangible offense than pissing off the conservative movement. Wishing for the deaths of innocents in the media is on a different level, I believe.
That's another ballgame for another day as there are those who wouldn't be willing to concede that the New York Times isn't a culprit in the vast scheme of the safety of Americans. Nevertheless, I'm not comparing what Coulter said in 2002 to what Maher said in 2007.
I don't think that killing the VP would make anything better
Well, thanks for at least attempting to keep me from equating liberal radicals with those ready to high five Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan for all the good job they're doing killing civilians and plotting assassinations on U.S. government leaders. The fact that you flirt with the notion to the point to say that it's a reasonable viewpoint, even if it is a little "polarizing" as you say.
It makes me very uncomfortable that you'd be willing to consider the opinion of Taliban suicide bombers negating civilian life as they attempt to bomb, suicide or otherwise, the vice president as one more valid than that of unjustly calling a Democratic presidential candidate a homosexual to get a few laughs.
Seeing as how Maher's comments took place this weekend, diversion would hardly be an appropriate definition. Pulling up Coulter quotes from 2002, well that might be more appropriate.
If I could edit LJ quotes, I would have amended my comment to say that if you're trying to illustrate media bias, the contrast is okay. But insofar as you're trying to apologize for Coulter, bringing up Maher like this is irrelevant. I assumed you were trying to do the latter, but I could be wrong.
Rest assured Cheney was not the only person in America willing to intervene militarily in Afghanistan in.
I wasn't referring to the invasion of Afghanistan, and I don't know why you would think that. There are many far-more-controversial Cheney-related machinisms which provoke ire. But it boils down to a somewhat-ugly of the thought that "the world would be better off if this guy were dead". The real contraversey isn't in the sentiment itself, but in how it's expressed. It's more disturbing to say "I wish terrorists would kill Dick Cheney", and it's more disturbing to say "I wish I could kill Dick Cheney", etc. etc., but they all are glamorizations of the core thought expressed in a more-or-less crude manner, often without consideration of the implications of the particular scenario envisioned. Maher probably wasn't really considering that rooting for the terrorists is probably a bad idea, that's it's not okay for them to kill people as long as it's people you don't like. But it represents a classic tension between supporting a general rule and all its particular applications: We generally don't condone violence as a solution to problems, but deep down we really wouldn't be bothered - maybe we'd be happy - if this violence were confined to people we don't like. Such restraint might be relaxed further given the knowledge that the person we don't like has shown a proclivity to use his power to initiate violence to dubious ends.
But insofar as you're trying to apologize for Coulter
No, certainly not. As I said in the original post, Coulter was outted for her remarks, which she should've been because they were inappropriate and in poor taste. Usually I enjoy Coulter even if it's just my darker side longing for someone to yell at liberal ideas as opposed to rationally deconstructing them. The reason I made the post was specifically to contrast how each situation was handled as I see both Coulter and Maher on par as partisan hacks. One of them, Maher, talked about something I found extremely vile, much more so than Coulter's comments, but he is given much more of a pass.
I brought up Afghanistan because that's where the assassination attempt took place, and I made the assumption that when you bring up Cheney's name in the context of more people would be alive if he were killed, that you would surely be referring to the greater conflict in the middle east. I suppose, as a legislator and part of the former Bush administration, you could loosely tie him into past military intervention, but that would seem much more obscure a connection.
Maher probably wasn't really considering that rooting for the terrorists is probably a bad idea, that's it's not okay for them to kill people as long as it's people you don't like.
Okay, I understand your argument better. I still really believe he realized the tender subject he was playing with, and he did nothing to conceal his emotional reactions to the subject.
That's the great thing about the lofty public expectations of politicians. We expect them to carefully think through what they say before they say it. It ends up being a real shocker to some when politicians speak from the heart, unrehearsed. For the rest of us, it's refreshing to hear something other than that carefully crafted for maximum gain.
When a politician apologizes for past words, it's only an apology in the sense that they're sorry they let their true feelings become known to the general public. Maher should consider a round or two in celebrity rehab, that always seems to patch things up in the eyes of those that claim to care more than they really do. That is, if he's even sorry. The rest of us see these sleazebags for what they are regardless of what they say, past present or future.
A public lynching will only satisfy those who crave such things. Among those of us who naturally (and with good reason) distrust politicians, it won't mean much of anything.
Seeing as how Maher's comments took place this weekend, diversion would hardly be an appropriate definition. Pulling up Coulter quotes from 2002, well that might be more appropriate.
certainly you don't think it's completely unreasonable to believe that his death could have prevented certain events from occuring.
Obviously but when I, and I imagine others, imitate liberals with the kind of dripping sarcasm that would have them compare President Bush or his administration to that of Nazi Germany, I do so, for the most part, to make a point. When you say things like a reasonable and intelligent person would advocate terrorist assassination plots against our nation's leaders, I feel much more disturbed about the very sanity of the left-wing movement in our nation. You seem to act as though Maher's comments were made completely oblivious to the effect they would have, even for a radical like Maher. Even the very basic criteria for the sentiment, that without Cheney "certain events," namely the military effort in Afghanistian, wouldn't have happened, is based on nothing more than impossible assumptions.
Rest assured Cheney was not the only person in America willing to intervene militarily in Afghanistan in.
That's even if the case were that Maher WAS unaware that his comments would be taken as they were. I don't think that's the case, and I don't think any honest person would willingly accept that rationale either. The truth would be that Maher knew exactly what he was saying, seeing as how these shows are given things to talk about beforehand even though some of the commentary may or may not be extemporaneous.
First of all, implying that Edwards is gay is absurd at best and offensive at worst
Exactly, an offensive slur that is out of place for any pundit who wants his/her ideas to be taken seriously. That goes without saying. Calling the notion absurd is a little strong as Edwards has a persona that is knowingly meterosexual. Of course, that doesn't excuse the comment, but I'd be hardpressed to eliminate the idea entirely.
second of all... the f-word was used. I'm not a huge fan of these little arbitrary cultural landmines, but when you step on one solely to be an asshole, you deserve the fallout you get.
Which is why I was content with the way Dean, McCain, and Giuliani handled it. She did deserve to be impugned for this comment and others she has made, that wasn't the reason I even bothered to make the post though. Ann Coulter will be Ann Coulter but contrasting her comments with Bill Maher's comments were what set me off. Bill Maher is a big proponent of being and asshole for it's own sake as well, and I know for a fact he doesn't shy away from dirty language when he does it either.
On the other hand, the NY Times is a civilian entity which has probably not been instrumental to thousands of dead Americans, which is a much more tangible offense than pissing off the conservative movement. Wishing for the deaths of innocents in the media is on a different level, I believe.
That's another ballgame for another day as there are those who wouldn't be willing to concede that the New York Times isn't a culprit in the vast scheme of the safety of Americans. Nevertheless, I'm not comparing what Coulter said in 2002 to what Maher said in 2007.
I don't think that killing the VP would make anything better
Well, thanks for at least attempting to keep me from equating liberal radicals with those ready to high five Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan for all the good job they're doing killing civilians and plotting assassinations on U.S. government leaders. The fact that you flirt with the notion to the point to say that it's a reasonable viewpoint, even if it is a little "polarizing" as you say.
It makes me very uncomfortable that you'd be willing to consider the opinion of Taliban suicide bombers negating civilian life as they attempt to bomb, suicide or otherwise, the vice president as one more valid than that of unjustly calling a Democratic presidential candidate a homosexual to get a few laughs.
Reply
If I could edit LJ quotes, I would have amended my comment to say that if you're trying to illustrate media bias, the contrast is okay. But insofar as you're trying to apologize for Coulter, bringing up Maher like this is irrelevant. I assumed you were trying to do the latter, but I could be wrong.
Rest assured Cheney was not the only person in America willing to intervene militarily in Afghanistan in.
I wasn't referring to the invasion of Afghanistan, and I don't know why you would think that. There are many far-more-controversial Cheney-related machinisms which provoke ire. But it boils down to a somewhat-ugly of the thought that "the world would be better off if this guy were dead". The real contraversey isn't in the sentiment itself, but in how it's expressed. It's more disturbing to say "I wish terrorists would kill Dick Cheney", and it's more disturbing to say "I wish I could kill Dick Cheney", etc. etc., but they all are glamorizations of the core thought expressed in a more-or-less crude manner, often without consideration of the implications of the particular scenario envisioned. Maher probably wasn't really considering that rooting for the terrorists is probably a bad idea, that's it's not okay for them to kill people as long as it's people you don't like. But it represents a classic tension between supporting a general rule and all its particular applications: We generally don't condone violence as a solution to problems, but deep down we really wouldn't be bothered - maybe we'd be happy - if this violence were confined to people we don't like. Such restraint might be relaxed further given the knowledge that the person we don't like has shown a proclivity to use his power to initiate violence to dubious ends.
Reply
No, certainly not. As I said in the original post, Coulter was outted for her remarks, which she should've been because they were inappropriate and in poor taste. Usually I enjoy Coulter even if it's just my darker side longing for someone to yell at liberal ideas as opposed to rationally deconstructing them. The reason I made the post was specifically to contrast how each situation was handled as I see both Coulter and Maher on par as partisan hacks. One of them, Maher, talked about something I found extremely vile, much more so than Coulter's comments, but he is given much more of a pass.
I brought up Afghanistan because that's where the assassination attempt took place, and I made the assumption that when you bring up Cheney's name in the context of more people would be alive if he were killed, that you would surely be referring to the greater conflict in the middle east. I suppose, as a legislator and part of the former Bush administration, you could loosely tie him into past military intervention, but that would seem much more obscure a connection.
Maher probably wasn't really considering that rooting for the terrorists is probably a bad idea, that's it's not okay for them to kill people as long as it's people you don't like.
Okay, I understand your argument better. I still really believe he realized the tender subject he was playing with, and he did nothing to conceal his emotional reactions to the subject.
Reply
When a politician apologizes for past words, it's only an apology in the sense that they're sorry they let their true feelings become known to the general public. Maher should consider a round or two in celebrity rehab, that always seems to patch things up in the eyes of those that claim to care more than they really do. That is, if he's even sorry. The rest of us see these sleazebags for what they are regardless of what they say, past present or future.
A public lynching will only satisfy those who crave such things. Among those of us who naturally (and with good reason) distrust politicians, it won't mean much of anything.
Reply
Leave a comment