RE: RE: Poor Steve
Do I have to break this down for you, Steve? (sigh)
Ann, a shock-pundit, says outrageous stuff to get attention and press time, which — in her world and at least presently — leads to more speaking gigs and sold books. She's not so much a contributor to political discourse as she is a leech on the politically-conservative body, if you will. Is anyone talking about anything else she said at the event? Hardly. She's like a firecracker; she goes off then nearly everyone around her is deaf or their ears are ringing for the next hour, which ultimately distracts listeners (and repells potential listeners) from any real point she may have. Even people who often agree with her are getting pretty damn tired of the distractions. Ask Andy.
My statements selected by Steve: Again, what Coulter said was nothing more than an attempt to get her name back in the news by riding the momentum of a presidential candidate... Anyway, she didn't address the audience, she used the audience to gain a few headlines and increased buzz in the political blog world.
Steve: Well now, which is it, Strother? Was she throwing bombs for her personal glorification and gratification, or was she doing it to generate buzz?
'Which is it?' Huh? No matter how much you'd like it, nothing I said in my original statement above is contradictory. I didn't even mention personal glorification/gratification (nice try... I guess), although Ann probably does enjoy the attention.
You posted in high dudgeon about Coulter's remarks. Giving you the rational benefit of the doubt, your wrath was incurred at least partially by the content of those remarks. The content of the remark in question involved homosexuals, Hollywood, and John Edwards. Since you are a regular defender of both Edwards and Hollywood, it can be assumed that you bridled at the association with homosexuals. Since you are on record here as not having any problem with homosexuals, the part that must have chapped you so badly was her use of the word, "faggot." Therefore, your response can only be rationally evaluated as being in defense of homosexual PC. Clear?
No, not clear; it's more like a real stretch to complete BS, Steve. While I do find what she said to be crude, my main problem with her statement is that it is essentially slander. She insinuates a 'hot-button' falsehood as an attempt to fuel her conservative audiences' dislike of John Edwards, a married man with children. It's fine to dislike him and/or his political leanings, but let it be fueled by reality, not prejudice-based fantasy. Reasonable people of all political stripes would agree with me here, as reasonable people generally prefer that others tune in rather than tune out after being shocked, offended, or whatever. And besides, do you not find some words and 'names' to be inappropriate and crude for use in public speaking? I do.
This next part from Steve (why John Edwards is a "metrosexual") might be way off track, but it's pretty funny and since he brought up the subject, it's worth another look:
Aside from the obvious physical characteristics Edwards displays (effeminate movements...
Wow, you're really tuned into Edwards' physical characteristics, Steve. I don't recall seeing him make effeminate movements; you must be looking for something. Do you think he's a good dancer?
...hair perfection
Again, his hair looks mostly like "preacher hair" to me. Are preachers with preacher hair metrosexuals, Steve?
completely non-threatening dress
Weird. What would "threatening dress" be? Steel-toe boots? A hard hat? A football helmet? Leather cowboy-style gun holsters?
etc.
What else, Mr. Blackwell? Don't leave us hanging!
Ann, a shock-pundit, says outrageous stuff to get attention and press time, which — in her world and at least presently — leads to more speaking gigs and sold books. She's not so much a contributor to political discourse as she is a leech on the politically-conservative body, if you will. Is anyone talking about anything else she said at the event? Hardly. She's like a firecracker; she goes off then nearly everyone around her is deaf or their ears are ringing for the next hour, which ultimately distracts listeners (and repells potential listeners) from any real point she may have. Even people who often agree with her are getting pretty damn tired of the distractions. Ask Andy.
My statements selected by Steve: Again, what Coulter said was nothing more than an attempt to get her name back in the news by riding the momentum of a presidential candidate... Anyway, she didn't address the audience, she used the audience to gain a few headlines and increased buzz in the political blog world.
Steve: Well now, which is it, Strother? Was she throwing bombs for her personal glorification and gratification, or was she doing it to generate buzz?
'Which is it?' Huh? No matter how much you'd like it, nothing I said in my original statement above is contradictory. I didn't even mention personal glorification/gratification (nice try... I guess), although Ann probably does enjoy the attention.
You posted in high dudgeon about Coulter's remarks. Giving you the rational benefit of the doubt, your wrath was incurred at least partially by the content of those remarks. The content of the remark in question involved homosexuals, Hollywood, and John Edwards. Since you are a regular defender of both Edwards and Hollywood, it can be assumed that you bridled at the association with homosexuals. Since you are on record here as not having any problem with homosexuals, the part that must have chapped you so badly was her use of the word, "faggot." Therefore, your response can only be rationally evaluated as being in defense of homosexual PC. Clear?
No, not clear; it's more like a real stretch to complete BS, Steve. While I do find what she said to be crude, my main problem with her statement is that it is essentially slander. She insinuates a 'hot-button' falsehood as an attempt to fuel her conservative audiences' dislike of John Edwards, a married man with children. It's fine to dislike him and/or his political leanings, but let it be fueled by reality, not prejudice-based fantasy. Reasonable people of all political stripes would agree with me here, as reasonable people generally prefer that others tune in rather than tune out after being shocked, offended, or whatever. And besides, do you not find some words and 'names' to be inappropriate and crude for use in public speaking? I do.
This next part from Steve (why John Edwards is a "metrosexual") might be way off track, but it's pretty funny and since he brought up the subject, it's worth another look:
Aside from the obvious physical characteristics Edwards displays (effeminate movements...
Wow, you're really tuned into Edwards' physical characteristics, Steve. I don't recall seeing him make effeminate movements; you must be looking for something. Do you think he's a good dancer?
...hair perfection
Again, his hair looks mostly like "preacher hair" to me. Are preachers with preacher hair metrosexuals, Steve?
completely non-threatening dress
Weird. What would "threatening dress" be? Steel-toe boots? A hard hat? A football helmet? Leather cowboy-style gun holsters?
etc.
What else, Mr. Blackwell? Don't leave us hanging!
posted by Strother | 11:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home