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.
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