NBC Bans Ann Coulter for Life

Agreed. She plays the Left, as a whole, like a fiddle.

IMO

She was very condescending in her interview with Matt Lauer - how is being condescending playing the left like a fiddle? On the other hand - butter wouldn't melt in her mouth when she's on with Hannity - she's all smiles and good cheer. I don't think she "plays" the left at all- but rather looks down her very long nose at them as if they are beneath her or just not quite bright enought to "get" her.
 
She was very condescending in her interview with Matt Lauer - how is being condescending playing the left like a fiddle? On the other hand - butter wouldn't melt in her mouth when she's on with Hannity - she's all smiles and good cheer. I don't think she "plays" the left at all- but rather looks down her very long nose at them as if they are beneath her or just not quite bright enought to "get" her.

He challenged her and she sounded like a fool to me. I didn't hear her say one thing that would be pertinent to today's issues, or that would carry in truth.

Like the innuendo about "single mothers". What about absent fathers? Why not just discuss divorce as it affects family values, or children? (because she just wants to get a "rise" out of people ), but this should offend anyone, no matter what their party affiliation.
 
This woman is an embarrassment! She is the lowest of haughtiness!
I just can't understand how she gains appearences on any national TV stations! And I just can't believe she represents the majority of the American people.
 
She was very condescending in her interview with Matt Lauer - how is being condescending playing the left like a fiddle? On the other hand - butter wouldn't melt in her mouth when she's on with Hannity - she's all smiles and good cheer. I don't think she "plays" the left at all- but rather looks down her very long nose at them as if they are beneath her or just not quite bright enought to "get" her.


I think that's exactly what she thinks and I'm ok with that, Matt Lauer is usually the one being condescending so it's great to see him getting some of it back. The Today Show is so OBVIOUSLY liberal it's fantastic to see him (any of them) deal with her. Not all of us like being told what to think by Gov't and their media lap dogs.
 
I think that's exactly what she thinks and I'm ok with that, Matt Lauer is usually the one being condescending so it's great to see him getting some of it back. The Today Show is so OBVIOUSLY liberal it's fantastic to see him (any of them) deal with her. Not all of us like being told what to think by Gov't and their media lap dogs.

I don't normally get to watch any of the morning shows- so I'm not qualified to talk at all about their attitudes but she was just short of rude yesterday in her interview with Lauer. I think I've seen Matt Lauer twice- this Ann Coulter interview and the infamous Tom Cruise interview. My SO likes Fox (aacck!) and so he watches a lot of Hannity & Colmes (sp?) - and even on that show - she's a different animal when speaking to Hannity than when speaking to Colmes. I don't like her haughty attitude at all- so I try not to watch her as she just gets my blood pressure soaring!
 
He challenged her and she sounded like a fool to me. I didn't hear her say one thing that would be pertinent to today's issues, or that would carry in truth.

Like the innuendo about "single mothers". What about absent fathers? Why not just discuss divorce as it affects family values, or children? (because she just wants to get a "rise" out of people ), but this should offend anyone, no matter what their party affiliation.

How true is that? These single mothers didn't become single mothers all on their own! Why not hold their feet to the fire as well?! This is why I generally leave the room when she's on- she's just not worth the time spent listening to her...and you can never get that five minutes back!
 
She was very condescending in her interview with Matt Lauer - how is being condescending playing the left like a fiddle? On the other hand - butter wouldn't melt in her mouth when she's on with Hannity - she's all smiles and good cheer. I don't think she "plays" the left at all- but rather looks down her very long nose at them as if they are beneath her or just not quite bright enought to "get" her.



It's easy. Anne writes a book, and Liberals simultaneously combust.
It's like clockwork, and it never stops being funny. She really knows the perfect buttons to press.

IMO
 
It's easy. Anne writes a book, and Liberals simultaneously combust.
It's like clockwork, and it never stops being funny. She really knows the perfect buttons to press.

IMO

You're kind of painting all the Liberals as one mindset aren't you? I'm liberal and have no use for her - don't know how many books she's written nor do I care. The few times I've seen her while in the company of my SO were enough to convince me that I didn't care for her because of her attitude- it has nothing to do with her views but rather her superior, haughty and very condescending, sarcastic attitude if someone doesn't "get" her. I was married to someone with an attitude just like hers and learned from that I don't need or want to listen to people who are convinced they are always right and those that disagree with them are beneath them. I made the mistake of watching her with Matt Lauer yesterday - the entire interview- a mistake I will not make again - thankfully there are lots more channels to turn to these days.
 
If a 'radical' lefty writes a book that is inflammatory the conservatives get all up in arms too. It goes both ways. Noam Chomsky, for example, gets flamed by the conservative talk show hosts and the like whenever he comes out with a new book - they absolutely loathe him.

I am a liberal too and I pay no attention to Ann Coulter except when I have the mis-fortune of coming across her on the tv. Bill Maher, who is very, very liberal, has her on his show quite often and they are actually friends outside of work and that is where I see her mostly and I think she doesn't let loose so much on his show out of respect for him. However, her comments concerning the poor are just ignorant, self-satisfying and destructive. Sure, Ann, children who have swollen bellies, flies on their faces, eating dirt to stay alive are in that position because they have no morals or values. Poor women in living in refugee camps in utter terror of being gang-raped and pillaged in Sudan and Congo and suffering brutality beyond our comprehension because they do not have proper values or morals. What she said was a very "Ayn Randian" philosophy - how scientific and educated of her.
 
I think that's exactly what she thinks and I'm ok with that, Matt Lauer is usually the one being condescending so it's great to see him getting some of it back. The Today Show is so OBVIOUSLY liberal it's fantastic to see him (any of them) deal with her. Not all of us like being told what to think by Gov't and their media lap dogs.

Treating someone rudely should not be excused. Not even by a person who has perceived condescending behavior (I don't watch the show or the man myself. Since it's of no interest to me. It's a great solution. If you don't like it, don't watch it!!). That's a cop out. It does not excuse her incendiary behavior, her lowering of political discourse (as stated by Elizabeth Edwards IIRC), and her hateful, mean spirited persona.

I do agree, she does spouts stuff to uphold her image. She is a caricature. Everything she says is carefully crafted to garner as much as attention as possible. She is a narcissist, and she needs fame and attention. And ultimately cash. So she incites hatred and anger amongst the people she trashes and bad mouths. There is nothing real about her.

She is an act--and conservatives lap it up as much as liberals react to it. She plays both sides.

She's not trying to advance any cause. She is out for herself and her bank account.

I still cannot believe anyone who honestly supports that vile, hateful act. She is mean and nasty. As a representative of our country and of the Republican party, she embarrasses and horrifies me. She is setting the party back. There are so much better representatives of the party. She's not funny, she doesn't actually debate or discuss issues (why would you when you can just launch personal attacks, talk over people and treat them like crap). She's offensive and rude (well, at least her media persona is!).

Someone suggested she is a ploy by the liberal media, as she is too obnoxious and hateful for the GOP. That she is a good strategy for weakening the public perception of Republicans and conservative viewpoints. I do have to admit it's interesting, but even this does not make her vile hate and nastiness palatable or remotely tolerable.
 
Treating someone rudely should not be excused. Not even by a person who has perceived condescending behavior (I don't watch the show or the man myself. Since it's of no interest to me. It's a great solution. If you don't like it, don't watch it!!). That's a cop out. It does not excuse her incendiary behavior, her lowering of political discourse (as stated by Elizabeth Edwards IIRC), and her hateful, mean spirited persona.

I do agree, she does spouts stuff to uphold her image. She is a caricature. Everything she says is carefully crafted to garner as much as attention as possible. She is a narcissist, and she needs fame and attention. And ultimately cash. So she incites hatred and anger amongst the people she trashes and bad mouths. There is nothing real about her.

She is an act--and conservatives lap it up as much as liberals react to it. She plays both sides.

She's not trying to advance any cause. She is out for herself and her bank account.

I still cannot believe anyone who honestly supports that vile, hateful act. She is mean and nasty. As a representative of our country and of the Republican party, she embarrasses and horrifies me. She is setting the party back. There are so much better representatives of the party. She's not funny, she doesn't actually debate or discuss issues (why would you when you can just launch personal attacks, talk over people and treat them like crap). She's offensive and rude (well, at least her media persona is!).

Someone suggested she is a ploy by the liberal media, as she is too obnoxious and hateful for the GOP. That she is a good strategy for weakening the public perception of Republicans and conservative viewpoints. I do have to admit it's interesting, but even this does not make her vile hate and nastiness palatable or remotely tolerable.

...and she has a real gift for exposing Left-wing hypocrisy. :clap:


IMO
 
I'm sorry but there is nothing redeemable about this woman. I think both liberals and conservatives should have their voices, ideology, etc in the media but by people who posess intelligence in the field or idea they are talking about. All this woman spews is hatred, ignorance, stereotypes and at times racism. NBC should focus on getting some people who actually know what they are talking about - on both sides of the party. I don't think Perez Hilton is the answer either.


I could not have said it better myself.
 
I'm sorry but there is nothing redeemable about this woman. I think both liberals and conservatives should have their voices, ideology, etc in the media but by people who posess intelligence in the field or idea they are talking about. All this woman spews is hatred, ignorance, stereotypes and at times racism. NBC should focus on getting some people who actually know what they are talking about - on both sides of the party. I don't think Perez Hilton is the answer either.


I could not have said it better myself.
 
Written by who knows ... I received it in one of those chain emails but it seems to apply here (just a little humor with bold added):

If you are a left leaning socialistic democrat this type of thinking just may get you to re-evaluate your sense of direction for this country. Cuba is a prime example of where we could be if we keep heading towards thinking that the government can provide for our every need.........but first get clear in your head "WHAT AND WHO IS THE GOVERNMENT'....just what does the government produce, plant and harvest, and sell to earn the money that they so freely give to those that could but do not produce and contribute to the productivity of this country. Don't remember where it came from...BUT...once everyone is in the wagon there will be no one left to pull it.

A letter from the Boss:

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don 't see is the BACK STORY :

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the Back Story and the sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

It's quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....

Signed, THE BOSS
 
Knot4u2no, thanks for sharing that.

I really don't know how anyone can be a Democrat, I really don't.
 
Interesting. Ever since welfare reform, you can only receive welfare for 60 months in a lifetime. How does someone relying on welfare for 5 years compare to the corporate welfare given to corporations everywhere, the GOP sponsored lack of regulation which lead to this major economic and financial debacle? It's a classic fallacy of false cause. Blame those without a voice, those the ones without a say. Blame the women, it's all their fault?!! Do you really think single mothers are to blame? It's not the greedy men who topple the economy? Because I am pretty sure the problems we are facing today are not caused by single woman and parents. I have never seen proof to support that.

Plus ever since reform, the number of welfare users have decreased (since there is a heavy work component hence the term "welfare-to-work."). More single parents are in the workforce than ever before. So this is really a non-issue. Even more so when you compare the welfare given annually to corporations.

What makes me laugh the most is that people STILL buy into the welfare queen! 32 years later! That is crazy. How is this possible? It just goes to show how falsehoods and myths become legends.
 
Knot4u2no, thanks for sharing that.

I really don't know how anyone can be a Democrat, I really don't.

I'll never understand why people employ ad hominem attacks.

It just further proves a lack of anything of value to say.



(Has Ann Coulter--and this thread--taught us nothing if not this?)
 
Interesting. Ever since welfare reform, you can only receive welfare for 60 months in a lifetime. How does someone relying on welfare for 5 years compare to the corporate welfare given to corporations everywhere, the GOP sponsored lack of regulation which lead to this major economic and financial debacle? It's a classic fallacy of false cause. Blame those without a voice, those the ones without a say. Blame the women, it's all their fault?!! Do you really think single mothers are to blame? It's not the greedy men who topple the economy? Because I am pretty sure the problems we are facing today are not caused by single woman and parents. I have never seen proof to support that.

Plus ever since reform, the number of welfare users have decreased (since there is a heavy work component hence the term "welfare-to-work."). More single parents are in the workforce than ever before. So this is really a non-issue. Even more so when you compare the welfare given annually to corporations.

What makes me laugh the most is that people STILL buy into the welfare queen! 32 years later! That is crazy. How is this possible? It just goes to show how falsehoods and myths become legends.

I can't believe we're still stuck on the issues of the '70's. Our economic difficulties are caused by totally different circumstances now.

And the "big spending" party starts with an "R" now.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
211
Guests online
3,228
Total visitors
3,439

Forum statistics

Threads
591,827
Messages
17,959,731
Members
228,621
Latest member
Greer∆
Back
Top