I saw a CNN video where one of the CNN gossip shows was discussing how Ann Coulter was the worst guest in the world. (or something like that) The people who make a living talking about what other people do, and the producers and hosts of 'The View' should know what most people know about Ann. She is extremely opinionated and she believes what she believes and doesn't really care who it offends. This is quite the opposite of the bleeding hearts on 'The View'. The only time they get opinionated is if it has to do with attacking George Bush or Sarah Palin. Then they can attack away.
At any rate, as I watched this video, I didn't see anything wrong with Ann Coulter's appearance on this show, except the 5 women who kept interrupting her. Ann makes some statements in her book which are strong statements, and she backs them up with her sources. (I haven't read her book, but she quotes a few sources just during the interview) One of the sources is a progressive 'think tank'. (a bit of an oxymoron if you ask me) So as they are questioning her about her strong statements, they keep interrupting her answers. She makes a statement they don't like. They call her on it. She tries to explain why she said what she said and they cut her off. I thought the premise of 'The View' was to be a discussion program, where topics, light and heavy, are DISCUSSED. Apparently the only discussion allowed is what the liberals on that show want to talk about.
But the bottom line is this question: Was Ann Coulter out of line during her appearance on 'The View'? I don't think so. She was Ann being Ann, with strong opinions and not backing down from anyone, even 'saint' Barbara Walters.
28 comments:
They're idiots. My personal opinion is that Coulter gets her kicks (and her money) by being a bi***. The thing is, everyone knows that so it's generally accepted. The thing I don't like is that her decent points get overlooked because of the way she presents them. It makes people defensive and when people are being defensive, they're not doing much listening. But, hey...she makes money and I really think that's the bottom line for her.
I don't think she was over the line, either. Those gals went into it ready to go and ready to make sure everyone knew their disdain for her. They don't treat every guest equally...that's certain.
Yeah, I really don't know why people are shocked when she says something outrageous. It's like going to a foul-mouth comedian's show, and saying; "I can't believe he said that! He needs to apologize!" You bought the tickets dummy! You knew what he was about. It's the same thing with Coulter. She says crazy stuff for ratings, yet people on these shows are stunned and all; "How dare she!?" She's Ann Coulter, it's what she does, but on this show she seemed remarkably restrained and tried very hard without being rude to make her points, but was interrupted when she was in danger of making the convincing argument that could sway the drones in the audience.
Why is it Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, etc (really any successful conservative opinion personality) are accused of just bein "in it for the money"? I never hear that criticism of Matthews or Walters or any of the liberals.
Could it possibly be that conservatives actually believe what they're sayn? Is there a chance that there success is powered by bein right on many issues?
Nest,
Let me know bout sat for za. Also, if you don't have my ph# let me know cause I still got yalls...some where.
I've still got your card, if saturday works better that's fine. I'll give you a call in a few hours to mash out the details.
When I think someone is "in it for the money" it's because I think their persona on tv probably isn't how they are in their every day life. Like I think AC probably doesn't go around being that obnoxious. Who knows...I could be wrong. I hope not, really. If they seem disingenous to whom they probably really are, that's when I think dollar signs.
F*** Mann Coulter. ;-)
I mean, I'd say that maybe if I was a woman.
She/he/it and his/her/it's politics is dead. Evidence: President Barack Obama.
Stan, President Barack Hussein Obama barely beat the worst candidate in recent history. When Reagan won, he won big. Obama won solidly, but it wasn't a blowout. A real conservative candidate would have smashed Obama.
*sigh* But now we have Obama, and we have to live with him, for 4 years anyway.
Nestor -
> Stan, President Barack Hussein Obama barely beat the worst candidate in recent history.
Dud, McCain't wasn't the worst candidate in recent history. Former President George "D Dubya I" Bush was the worst candidate in recent history. It only took McCain'ts duplication of his (and Dole's) campaign(s) to make America realize that simple fact.
Stan,
George W. Bush beat Al Gore, John F. Kerry and John McCain, so obviously those three (I voted for all three of them :( ) were worse candidates than Bush.
Maybe I need to vote for who I don't want to win. I'm 0 for 3 in presidential elections.
Nestor, Bush didn't win those elections. He stole those elections.
Stan - "Nestor, Bush didn't win those elections. He stole those elections."
Wow, how'd you think that up Stan?
I agree w/ you Stan, "free Ann Coulter"!
You typically attack Coulter on a personal level as you cannnot refute her ideological stances.
Attack the real Ann Coulter Stan.
Nestor, review recent history.
Reck, I don't attack the real Ann Coulter because she has no credibility worthy of attack.
Stan,
I've talked to Democrats who were in the Democrat party, working for Gore who said that Bush won Florida fair and square. It was close. Roughly 500 votes, but Bush won. If you want to talk about stealing elections, look at your homeboy Al Franken.
There's no such thing as "the Democrat" party.
You need new sources. Valid sources.
"Valid sources."
LMAO!
Every recount done in Florida (by the dims, by the media, etc) ended w/ Bush ahead.
Talk about beatin a dead horse.
Reck -
> Every recount done in Florida (by the dims, by the media, etc) ended w/ Bush ahead.
You got to have a count before you can have a recount. The SC stopped the first count and declared GW the winner prematurally.
And Al Franken only want all legitimate votes to be counted, even if it would've ended up him losing the election that he just won.
Aw...it warms my heart to see ya'll coming together now that Obama's president! It was worth the hype!
Stan,
It was a liberal court that stopped the 2000 recount, which Bush won clearly after many recounts. Bush won in 2004 and it wasn't by the 2000 razor thin margin. He won by a solid margin.
Franken is not trying to get legitimate votes counted, he's trying to get votes for Coleman tossed out. How many Franken votes have been tossed out?
Yes we can!!
Nestor, what planet do you live *IN*????
Reck bears false witness against his neighbors -
>
Every recount done in Florida (by the dims, by the media, etc) ended w/ Bush ahead.
Name one recount that showed Gore ahead.
The main Miami newspaper did a recount, using like 5 different methods. From my recollection all 5 different methods showed Gore winning Florida.
Stan,
There was no official recount that said Gore won Florida. You can throw a tantrum all you want, but it doesn't make it true. The Miami paper's recount was probably a poll taken in the very blue (ie far-left) Dade county.
Not only that, but the MSM called Florida for Gore early on (thereby disenfranchisn voters in the very red panhandle area) and cost Bush 1000's of votes.
Not surprised you'd list a "paper's" pol data as proof. You need to quit hangin w/ Chad.
Nestor -
> There was no official recount that said Gore won Florida.
That's because there was no "official" recount (or count) that said anything. There never was an official count of (all the) votes in Florida.
Post a Comment