News-Record.com

But too much of her act is gratuitous verbal violence that sullies anyone who gives her a forum.*Doug

Doug! I am confuse! Since when does verbal violence packs the weigh of a AK-47 in words?

Surely your Mom taught you " Sticks and Stones will hurt me, but silly Anne words will never hurt my deep inner liberal emotional feeling."

Frankly! I think she should be arrested for linging on a political streetcorner without a permit and mistakenly put in the Durham County men's holding cell section until the Republican party bails her out.

This comes from a man that has spend his life supporting left wing people, would I expect anything different? I think you are another liberal that belives freedom of speech is what we liberals say is ok,until you disagree with me.
Did you watch CNN yesterday, they ran a banner, BUSH crash in Atlanta, kills 4 baseball players.
Doug tells us when the last time your paper ran a LTE on the scams in Raleigh. Tell us when the last time your paper ran negative news on a democrat? Tell us the last time you endorsed a republican for a major office?Before you say Black, the Tibet Monthly ran stories about Black before your paper did. Tell us why your beloved tax and spend liberals now want to take people land for pennies on the dollar? You endorse this just last week.Fair and balanced BS. Tell us why our taxes are so high, Our roads are all tore up, our schools are near the bottom, of course I have a better chance of winning the NC Education, than your paper printing this, and I have never spent one dollar, on Easley lastest scam.Then you could tell us how many food card people are selling them for 50% off to buy lotto tickets?

DJ,

I dont have time to discuss your points though I believe a few are easily refutable. I think you are somewhat offbase on a few points.

Anyway, Coulter is a cartoon. Dont really like her and find she is often used as a stick to beat Rep/Cons over the head. In my mind, it is as if she is "blogging" all the time. She sort of talks and writes in that nasty blogosphere kinda way. She is no more than a Neocon and more succesful version of Amanda Marcotte et al. Often thrown out as a bone to Conservative readers by Lib newspapers then used as the above mentioned stick when she runs off at the mouth. She exists only as a counter balance to mean and nasty lefties. She is obviously intelligent and is a good writer but I just do not like her over the top, tell it like she sees it, mean takes on .... well .... anything.

Very Republican, Very Conservative
Mick

I think Teddy Kennedy slamming his fist on the podium and screaming, "LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!" when describing President Bush is an outrage.
I think Harry Reid telling schoolchildren that President Bush is a liar and not to trust him is an outrage.
I think Bill Maher calling for the murder of Vice-President Cheney is an outrage.
I think CBS running a "joke" banner during a late night show trying to recruit someone to assassinate President Bush is an outrage.

But when one private citizen (Coulter) jokes about another private citizen (Edwards) then Doug Clark finally gets upset??? For Pete's sake, she didn't even call him a name, she just explained why she couldn't call him a name.
So you think Coulter needs to be strung up because she "almost" called someone a name while exercising her right to free speech??
I hate to say this, Doug, but that mentality was all the rage in 1930's Nazi Germany and it didn't work there, either.

Doug J,

Last letter we ran on scams in Raleigh: Saturday.

Last Republican endorsed for major office: Howard Coble for Congress, 2006.

Last negative news about a Democrat: The whole Jim Black story. We were the first newspaper to call for his resignation, back in December 2005.

Jaycee,

This is about what Coulter said, not what she didn't say. It's not a free speech issue, it's a decent speech issue. She deserves to be called out for it. I was critical in this forum of Edwards for the nasty bloggers he hired, and the Conservative Political Action Conference deserves no less for putting Coulter on stage, with predictable results.

The dirty truth is, people who agree with either wacko side of the political divide seem to relish in this kind of language and snide attack. They buy all the books like bottled water, to wash down their bile. It only adds to the reflux. Look at the response she got in the hall: hoots and hollers and approving applause.
Do the candidates really WANT the support of such company?

I grew up around reasonable, intelligent Republican voters and even the occasional similarly-inclined politcian. They wouldn't give this kind of slur the time of day.

Coulter is an embarrassment. I hope the major candidates for the Republicans continue to stand against this garbage.

Conservative Political Action Conference deserves no less for putting Coulter on stage, with predictable results.* Doug

Right Doug! But during all of the excitement after the Annie comment about Edwards gender issue and the uproar from the conservatives at the meeting. Congressperson Patty McHenry jump up on the stage and hugged Annie for taking the heat off him on the Gay issue with the conservatives.

So you don't like what she said? Fine, but don't try to tell me I have to agree with you, or that she doesn't have a right to say it, or that we should castigate her just because we may not agree with it. What about the derogatory, scatalogical, insulting, and downright nasty things Dems say all the time about President Bush and his administration? Do you write long columsn denouncing them? I guess not, or you'd have nothing but that as a subject every day.
Hypocrisy from the left...why am I not surprised??

Anne's act got old a long time ago. Recall that this is the same person that said that the 9/11 widows were happy about their spouses deaths.

Given her track record, her most recent comments are not at all surprising. What is disappointing, though, is that she continues to keep such a prominent role among mainstream conservatives. Instead of disassociating themselves from her, conservatives continue to provide her with speaking opportunities and to snap up her books. One can only conclude that they support the garbage that she spews.

As interesting is that neither DJ, Jaycee nor Connie see any need to condemn the remarks. For them, this is what passes for acceptable discourse.

Actually, Doug has been anything but hypocritical on this subject.

A couple of weeks ago, he blasted a blogger working for John Edwards for making offensive statements about Christianity. Now, he's blasting Coulter for her offensive statements. Sounds consistent to me and I agree with him on both counts.

And Jaycee, freedom of speech only means Coulter has the right to say what she wants without being thrown in jail. It doesn't mean she's immune from criticism - or that there aren't consequences for what we choose to say.

For example, it wouldn't surprise me if some newspapers decide to drop Coulter's column after what she said.

I didn't either condemn or applaud Ms. Coulter's comments. She's a private citizen, and Edwards is a private citizen. What other private citizens say about each other is not really any concern of mine. Neither is an elected official or public employee. They're not wasting any tax money when they talk about each other.
What surprises me is that anyone considers her comments as "news" at all.

The Conservative Political Action Conference invited news coverage of its event so it obviously intended that anything said there should be considered news.

In my view, Coulter's statement was more newsworthy than the remarks about homosexuals by a former basketball player. She was using a derogatory term for gays and applying it to a presidential candidate.

I disagree. Coulter did not use that reference towards Edwards, she explained why she WOULD NOT use it. It's a non-statement, and further, it's between two private citizens. Edwards is NOT the President.
Will you start write a column every time the opposition makes derogatory remarks even more desultory about our elected President? If so, I'll start sending you a bunch every day. Get ready.

Jaycee:

You wrote, "What other private citizens say about each other is not really any concern of mine." Yet two posts earlier you criticized Bill Mahrer. And within the last week you've criticized Louis Farrakhan for his racism (your exact word) and hateful speech. Your condemnation seems to be mighty selective. If it's someone on the right, your comment essentially is "to get over it." If it's someone on the left, it's an "outrage."

Moreover, in your world calling someone a "f----t" is not calling them a name. If there is another interpretation for her slur, we'd love to hear it.

Also, your history is off. These kinds of slurs (and many more) WERE all the rage in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, where gays were marched off to the concentration camps.

jaycee, Coulter clearly associated that term with Edwards. It's obvious to everyone.

You're welcome to send me anything you like, but I'll pick and choose what to write. I thought I'd stick up for Edwards this time. His campaign doesn't appear to be going anywhere anyway.

As interesting is that neither DJ, Jaycee nor Connie see any need to condemn the remarks. * Dave

Whoa David! Annie is a enemy of mine simply because she is the dumbest and the most unconstitutionalist freak I have ever seen at trying to be a political whore for the Bush neo-con agenda that is destroying this nation. If it was left up to me, I would hang the psycho Bit## tonight without legal due process.

But being a follower of Mother Theresa, I would not dare harm her in anyway. However, if Annie was in India on a political mission for the Republican Bush agenda and ran into a herd of raging Elephants in front of her. I would not stand in the way to calm the elephants and let Mother Theresa pray for her soul and not harm the elephants.

This is about what Coulter said, not what she didn't say. It's not a free speech issue, it's a decent speech issue.* Doug

Doug! I have search the Constitution about the term Free Speech or expression. Nowhere can I find the term " decent" speech in it since it simply says just "Free"?

Connie:

Thanks for clarifying your standards regarding what constitutes (no pun intended) decent speech. Calling Coulter names and threatening her just puts you at her same hateful level.

My point, Doug, is that you seem all too quick to jump on any conservative with whom you disagree. Yes, you can be selective...and you show it when you criticize those on the right while letting the left say and do anything they want, no matter how outrageous, with no comment from you.
How about an article on Harry Reid's hate speech?
How about an article on Teddy Kennedy's hate speech?
How about an article on Nancy Pelosi's hate speech?
How about an article on Bill Maher's hate speech?
How about an article on Sean Penn's hate speech?

Mr. Ribar, please show me where Coulter called Edwards anything. You can't because she didn't.
I'll say it again for the third time in case you can't read and comprehend the English language: Coulter explained why she WOULD NOT use that term to describe Edwards. So she didn't call him anything.
My point, Mr. Ribar, is that while I may not agree with what people say, even in public, I defend their right to say it. And if we're going to chastise people for "nasty" speech let's do it fairly and impartially instead of singling out only the conservatives for public excoriation.

Jaycee,

I was going to have a few comments on your post, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "idiotic." There, you were just NOT insulted.

BTW, calling a liar a "liar" is not hate speech.

Calling Coulter names and threatening her just puts you at her same hateful level.* David

How dare you call Mother Theresa a hateful women David?

I'll say it again for the third time in case you can't read and comprehend the English language:* jayee

At least jayee and I agree on his comment about you David? Now get your act together before Mother Theresa puts out a bounty on your head from the Pope.

OK, jaycee, I'll give you one:

Before John Edwards faults anyone else for focusing on their own "selfish short-term needs," he should sell his $6 million estate and give the money to the poor.

It is glaringly obvious Coulter was wanting to apply the f---t word to Edwards. She couched he clumsy comment in exactly the way she could do so "without doing so", all the while rolling her eyes and shifting her beady, over-mascara-ed eyes.

I am no supporter of Edwards, who comes off to me as hypocritical about his anti-poverty programs and pr0-environment stances; but that doesn't mean idgits like Coulter should have carte blanche to defame and play verbal footsie with libel.

Name one prominent Democratic pundit who has said something as clearly personally aimed at Bush's alleged sexual identity or similar level of personal issue. If he's been said to have lied, that is not a personal attack on his identity; it is a judgement about his truthfulness and hence fitness for office.

Notice, I did not say he lied. Nor did I call him a "liar".

I will call him an increasingly incompetent executive to lead the country.

I will say I believe he and his operatives managed to basically steal the 2000 election.

I will say I used to vote Republican, but find most of their candidates in thrall to a rabid brand of conservatism that frightens and angers me. So, while I am not enamored of any particular Democrat, either, I have voted for more of them the past several years.

We know unequivocally that Bush lied. See for example the transcript from his post-election press conference:

REPORTER: Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?

BUSH: You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer.

Dave, please show me what you allege is a "lie" in that statement. Rumsfeld did stay on after that interview, he didn't resign for some time. President Bush clearly tells the reporters he didn't want to make (and, indeed, did not make) that decision until after the interview with the reporters.
Dave, just because you hate somethone so badly you want to disbelieve everything he says, that doesn't make it so. Just because you want the truth to be something else doesn't make it so. Just because you lost and are angry about it doesn't mean every work your opponent says is a lie. No matter how badly you want to discredit someone who told the truth, you can't change that.

Jaycee:

That transcript came from the press conference where Pres. Bush announced that he was sacking Rumsfeld and replacing him with Gates. In the interview before the election, he had said that he would not do this, yet he had already offered the job to Gates.

President Bush (and his defenders) look and act more and more like "Baghdad Bob" each day. The credibility of this administration is shot. Sadly, the actions of the now-convicted liar Scooter Libby are par for the course for this group.

As Groucho Marx once said, "Are you going to believe me or your own eyes?"

I will call him an increasingly incompetent executive to lead the country.* Jim

You are right Jim! Calling people sissies like Annie did about Edwards is a no, no. The same applies to Bush, however in the interest of personal sexual issues, there is no reason for you to call Bush incomptent in a nice way.

Frankly! Just say he is retarded and move on!

Dave, you're reading something into that transcript that is just not there. I don't know if it's because you're so blinded by your hate of Bush that you can't see straight, or if you're just a bad reader.
There is no lie there. Bush's account of the sequence of events coincides with what happened and the time the reporters questioned him and then when Rumsfeld later resigned.
Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself??
Your view that "credibility is shot" is your opinion, one not shared by everyone. My view is much different. But we're both free to have our own opinions and to judge events from our own perspective.
Have a nice day.

Jaycee:

The Washington Post poll taken on Feb. 25 found that when asked "Overall, do you feel that you can or cannot trust the Bush administration to honestly and accurately report intelligence about possible threats from other countries?" 63 percent of respondents said that they "cannot" trust this administration.

Clearly, the American people aren't buying what the President's selling. New disclosures are coming out about how the administration lied about the uranium enrichment program in North Korea and lied about the reasons for firing federal prosecutors. This coupled with previous lies on the costs of the war, the costs of the medicare drug plan, its involvement in domestic spying, its involvement in overseas renditions and black site prisons, overtures from Iran, whether "stay the course" was ever its war policy, what it was told in advance of Katrina, how it would handle anyone who was found to have leaked information about Valerie Flame, etc. have led to a complete loss in credibility. It's just one whopper after another for these folks.

It's sweet in a way that you still believe in this guy (even when he admits that he lied). Since you seem to be the last one left, please be sure to turn out the lights when you leave.

Dave, you have to ask yourself where people get the information with which to form their opinions. Overwhlemingly, they get it from the mainstream media. Then the media conducts polls...and confirms the position they themselves invented!
There has been no definitive determination that anyone in the administration lied about the NK enrichment program, that's just editorial opinion. Can they convice the public and conduct a poll to see how effectively they've put their position across? Of course they can.
Likewise, it's just editorial opinion that there was any lying about the termination of federal prosecutors. That happens all the time in every administration.
I have seen no "lies" on the cost of the war, it's all pretty much in black and white on the balance sheet. If you choose to believe it when someone tells you differently, shame on you.
There has been a lot of editorial hype about rendition, ad nauseum. No proof, just conjecture. Likewise on Iran overtures and policy. Just because you don't like it personally (or the editorial staff of any liberal publication you choose to get your news from) doesn't make it a lie.
The person who "leaked" the name of Plame was Richard Armitage. No question there. He is not employed with the government now.
In short, you've either been led astray because you don't know any better or you prefer to continue telling lies about our government and President. Either way, shame on you.

Jaycee:

You parse the President's record like an earlier President parsed the meaning of the word "is." and have essentially signed on to your own Pulpit Forum to defend that which cannot be defended.

It's too bad that you can't accept what most reasonable and reasoned people concluded long ago, that this President can't be trusted.

Of course it's editorial opinion when the Administration's own spokespeople say that they are no longer confident that North Korea was enriching uranium.

Of course it's editorial opinion when the White House itself says that it approved the firing of the prosecutors and that it worked to get the special provision to do so into the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Of course it's editorial opinion that this administration sacked General Shineski when he testified about the true expected costs of the war, and it's editorial opinion that until this year the White House would not include the appropriations for the war in the official budget.

Of course it's editorial opinion that the White House itself fessed up about extraordinary renditions and black site prisons after denying that this occurred (by the way, it's also just editorial opinion that the Italians are attempting--illegally but attempting none the less--to try members of our military and CIA for the renditions that were only editorial opinion).

Of course the documents that the Swiss government released regarding the shift in Iran's position shortly after 9/11 are opinion.

And of course its editorial opinion that Karl Rove admitted to a grand jury leaking Valerie Plame's name. Recall that the President used the word "anyone," but that too is just an editorial opinion.