TheAgitator.com
First Phase of Obama’s Fairness Doctrine Plan Complete
Tuesday, November 25th, 2008And to be honest, I’m having a hard time finding anything objectionable about it.
64 Responses to “First Phase of Obama’s Fairness Doctrine Plan Complete”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
If that link goes tothe right place, I guess I have to admit that I do not get the joke.
It’s only too bad it won’t be permanent.
That’s a bit low for what I have come to expect from this site.
I agree with Difranco. I’m not a big Ann Coulter fan, but this sort of thing is despicable.
Lame.
I don’t see anything despicable about joking about how a shrill and hateful woman who makes a living spouting absurd ideas has gotten her jaw wired shut. It is harmless and kinda funny.
I was not offended by this but I don’t think it’s a good idea to make light of a concept specifically designed to quash certain opinions.
You know, Radley, a few weeks back you remarked about how bitter and rancorous your comments section was getting. I know this is your blog, and you’ve every right to post whatever the hell you want here (though not, one assumes, if the Fairness Doctrine is restored), but it’s pretty sad to see you upset over the mean-spirited, lowest-common-denominator kind of behavior that was going on in the comments when you go right ahead and post a mean-spirited, lowest-common-denominator kind of post.
I’m not defending Ann Coulter here. I find her irritating, repugnant, and the sort of person who, through her childish antics, takes political discourse straight into the gutter. But stooping to her level? Really, Radley, that’s not going to help anything at all.
But stooping to her level? Really, Radley, that’s not going to help anything at all.
Since he hasn’t called her a traitor who loves terrorists or suggested she should be killed or demeaned her in any way, I don’t think he’s stooping to her level. He’s noting the subjectively entertaining irony that a hate-filled war monger should have her jaw wired shut.
You have to stoop much, much lower than that to get to Coulter’s level.
Well played, Radley, well played.
Oh, THAT Fairness Doctrine!! Can we apply it to Bill Maher, too?
Good grief. This is not bitterness. This is irony. And it is ironic.
What is going on here? People, settle down. It is funny.
Conservatives who think Coulter has ever said anything of worth have very poorly developed senses of humor and, like Coulter, aren’t mature enough to take it like they dish it out.
Radlely, I was completely taken in by the headline and I enjoyed the joke, which was at least as much a joke on me and my expectations about what it would take to make a Fairness Doctrine OK by you as it was a joke on Ann Coulter.
Good grief, people. It’s a joke. Laugh (or not) and move on.
made my day
Way to laugh at another’s person’s misfortune Radley. Whatever you think of someone’s politics it is never OK to root for their physical harm. I can’t wait for Obama to come and break both of your arms you douchebag. That will be the next step in the fairness doctrine. I agree with Rightshu. I won’t be coming back here again.
How long will his jaw be broke?
Screw you guys. That shit is objectively funny.
no one is rooting for any kind of injury here Timmy, she is already injured. It is funny that the loudmouth got her mouth wired shut. I made fun of my uncle for this too, and he never got all teary about it.
err.. nevermind, sometimes I miss satire in texts
Good Christ but some of you are being overly touchy-feely about this! It’s not as if he said he wished he were the one who had done the damage to her or anything. And even if he did, you should know the man by now. It’s a joke. And a pretty funny one at that. Get over yourselves.
#19:
I see what you did there…..lol.
One last post Radley, I look forward to being able to laugh at you and/or your family when you or they are injured. Especially if it is one of your kids. After all, other peoples pain and misfortune is funny right? Let’s see how funny you think it is when the shoe is on the other foot. Now that would be hilarious.
Dear Tim,
If you stop reading my site, how will you know if I’ve been injured?
I did have a migraine yesterday. Is that funny?
Dear Radley,
Only if you had a stroke. Besides, I will be able to find out if you have been injured over at Reason. Maybe your wife or one of your kids will get hit by a car. That would be funny too.
Tim Mayhugh,
Asshole.
thomasblair,
Not so funny when it’s about you or someone you like is it.
Thanks for making my point Fuckface.
Wow. Touched some nerves today, I see.
I admit, I laughed. If it’s true, I feel badly for her pain, but good golly if that isn’t the very definition of ironic, I need a new dictionary.
… waits for someone to throw a new dictionary at my head so they can laugh…
Yes, Tim, because a virulent liar, bigot, and war-monger having her jaw wired shut is equal to women and innocent children getting hit by a car.
You’re making a fool of yourself.
“Tragedy is when I stub my toe. Comedy is when you fall in an open manhole and die”. -Mel Brooks (quote not exact)
Les,
Moral relevance tells us that there is good in everyone. Even a virulent liar, bigot, and war-monger. Will you laugh when Olberman, Matthews etc get hurt? They may not be war-mongers but the other two fit to a tee.
God’s own,
Mel was talking about movies, not real life idiot.
I had no idea everyone here was so sensitive.
Tim Mayhugh’s sane, disciplined, articulate, courteous argument has convinced me that Ann Coultier’s extraordinary pain is not humorous (or even ironic comedy).
Also, I’m beginning to doubt there’s comedy in that chicken crossing the road, priests who walk into a bar, a farmer’s hot daughter and a hitchhiker, a horse’s long face, a monkey and cue ball, a farting dog, someone’s momma’s weight and/or ignorance, and not getting the full identity upon the initial request of someone who knock-knocks on your door.
Prof. Tim, can you help me better understand moral relevance?
Boyd, thank you, that was awesome… especially the knock-knock part.
*giggles*
Aww, poo. I plus’d you Boyd, but Tim must ‘ve minus’d you.
*Pluses Boyd in spirit*
If anyone needs a better sense of humor, or rather a keener sense of satire, it would those people who didn’t get the point of Coulter’s supposedly controversial remarks about converting Muslims to Christianity at the point of the sword (fundamentalist Islamist doctrine reversed) or John Edwards (lampooning what “leftists” or “liberals” had previously said without consequence), to name two examples.
I can’t speak for conservatives–as I disagree with them, thus I disagree with Coulter philosophically, particularly on matters of theology and social issues, where conservative Republicans tend to be anti-individualist. But the fact is that she has said many things of worth. I give no value to politeness when the issues involved are dead serious and the opponents are set on doing great damage.
For example, if you want to discuss the accuracy of climate models, we can have a civil discussion. If you want to drive up my utility bill, forcibly prevent me from using the only light bulb which will work for my needs, or drive the coal industry out of business in pursuit of technology which simply does not work and never will (solar, wind–run the numbers, they can’t work, ever), then we’re at war and the gloves are off. And, I am justified because you drew first blood.
I may wish Ann Coulter had a more libertarian philosophy, but I’d take her over tingly legs Mathews any day.
If anyone needs a better sense of humor, or rather a keener sense of satire, it would those people who didn’t get the point of Coulter’s supposedly controversial remarks about converting Muslims to Christianity at the point of the sword (fundamentalist Islamist doctrine reversed)…
What was the point of saying, immediately after 9/11:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.
Was she being ironic or symbolic? Sarcastic, maybe? Please provide some evidence that she really didn’t mean this and then I’ll toy with the idea that I “didn’t get the point” of it.
@steve,
Coulter is anything that makes her money. She has no philosophy. She has staked out a lucrative market that she plays too well. She gets invited to all the reindeer games.
All in all Coulter is just an entertainer. Looking at her as anything more than that is naive. If “libertarianism” was profitable she would shill about it.
(i found the irony is this headline hilarious)
Moral relevance tells us that there is good in everyone. Even a virulent liar, bigot, and war-monger.
I absolutely agree with this. It doesn’t change the fact that Ann Coulter having her jaw wired shut is funny.
Will you laugh when Olberman, Matthews etc get hurt? They may not be war-mongers but the other two fit to a tee.
If they have to have their mouths wired shut, I certainly would.
The next time you laugh at a bit of slapstick comedy, remember that you’re laughing at someone else’s misfortune.
Read what you cited again. Look up how Muslim conquerers, for centuries, forced people to convert to Islam at the point of a sword. Notice any similarities?
Did you seriously think that anyone would consider the US invading Muslim countries to convert their leaders to be a viable suggestion? How can anyone take seriously the idea that US troops would be pursuing a mission of theocratic conquest? No, pretending not to see the satire is just an excuse to bash Coulter. She has said many other things, seriously, which are well deserving of criticism without making a phony case here.
In case you don’t get it: suppose some Chinese journalist, known for his satire, pointed out that George Bush was a threat to other countries, and suggested that an international force invade the US, topple the Bush government, and occupy this country for years, I would get the sarcasm. That was Bush’s justification for invading Iraq, but obviously nobody is going to be invading the US in the near future. Only a fool would be up on his high horse, insisting despite all evidence, that that journalist was a warmonger.
You’re wrong. She has well-defined principles, even if I disagree with a number of them. She has a political agenda, far greater than a simple goal of making money by “entertaining” with her controversies. When she sticks to her guns and, as a consequence, gets dropped from newspapers, I don’t think you can make the case that she’s driven by profit.
You ought to read more of her work, if you seriously think she has no philosophy. I’ve never bought any of her books, but I’ve borrowed them. Do the same, so you don’t put any money in her pocket.
@33- Actually, Brooks was making the point that whether something is funny or not depends on whether it’s happenning to you or someone else. Thus the I/you reference to a minor/major mishap.
I kind assume I’m not unique or completely evil in that my first reaction when I see someone trip and fall is usually a loud guffaw- followed immediately by checking on the welfare of the klutz who fell. I don’t wish harm on anyone, but I am always appreciative of dark humor.
WOW! Some of the comments are funnier than the original joke! You’re right, Anne Coulter does have one redeeming quality: she’s a Grateful Dead fan! Otherwise, I’m with Les, he seems to be on point, as usual.
And talk about relativism, I don’t remember seeing Radley threaten anyone’s wife and kids? That’s just plain sick!
Now go to work on that “karma subtraction” button, if it hits -50, I’ll wire my OWN jaw shut!
Read what you cited again. Look up how Muslim conquerers, for centuries, forced people to convert to Islam at the point of a sword. Notice any similarities?
Well, yes. Christian conquerors did the same thing for centuries. If you your point is that Coulter is a historically ignorant hypocrite, I’m in complete agreement.
How can anyone take seriously the idea that US troops would be pursuing a mission of theocratic conquest? No, pretending not to see the satire is just an excuse to bash Coulter.
Steve, she was let go from the National Review, in part, for saying it and she has never suggested she was writing “satire.”
A quick google search reveals this exchange between Coulter and Alan Colmes:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134537,00.html
COLMES: Yes, that’s great. That’s great. You’ve been asked, by the way, if you want to reiterate that statement when you said right after September 11, you said, and you know where I’m going with this, I’m often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. You say the same thing Nixon said in 1972, “Now more than ever.”
COULTER: Now more than ever.
and
COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?
COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.
and
COLMES: I see. Now they should all be Christians? OK. No further questions.
COULTER: And this is, by the way, well, OK — this is, by the way, what America has done after World War II, after the Korean War. MacArthur put out a call for Christian missionaries to come, and missionaries poured into Japan. They poured into Korea. It didn’t work as well, the conversion in Japan, but it certainly did in Korea. And I know that we haven’t had any trouble from them for a while.
—————
Ann Coulter is not “known for her satire.” Please find me a link where she’s described as a “satirist.” She’s not. She’s a columnist, a polemic. I don’t know why you continue to insist she’s just joking when she’s never claimed to be.
And then there was the Enlightenment. Mind your history before calling someone else “historically ignorant.”
So, I take it that you are expecting us to believe that US troops engaging in theocratic conquest is a plausible scenario? Would the Muslim, Jewish, and atheist troops stay home or be kicked out? What about Catholics? More than that, I’m wondering just how far you’re going to take this silly pretense.
I pay attention to what she says, in context, and I see plenty of satire. Look up her remarks about John Edwards. What she said, on two different occasions, wasn’t out of the blue, but deliberately chosen to highlight the fact that “liberals” had recently said such things without consequences.
Read this.
Of course the real joke here is that Radley knows full well the “fairness doctrine” is (will be) aimed squarely at conservative voices (regardless of whether Coulter is a good or bad example of them).
The joke wouldn’t be funny if Olberman had broken his jaw and Radleys post linked to that story.
So I am dissappointed in Radleys rather casual dissing of the threat towards free speech, just because its someone he finds objectionable. Remember, we have to protect EVERYONE’s free speech if we are going to protect ANYBODY’s.
And then there was the Enlightenment. Mind your history before calling someone else “historically ignorant.”
If you think the Enlightenment put a stop to governments attempting to spread Christianity by force, I can understand why you’re defending Coulter.
So, I take it that you are expecting us to believe that US troops engaging in theocratic conquest is a plausible scenario? Would the Muslim, Jewish, and atheist troops stay home or be kicked out? What about Catholics? More than that, I’m wondering just how far you’re going to take this silly pretense.
Steve, it is silly, I’m agreeing with you that it’s a silly idea. But, for some reason, you think that Coulter was joking. She never said she was joking. She even defended the statements. And still you persist in this baseless notion that she was joking. Heck, if you can find any instance of her saying she was joking, I’ll take her at her word. But, like I pointed out above, she’s explicitly stated that she was serious.
I pay attention to what she says, in context, and I see plenty of satire.
That doesn’t make her “known for her satire.” And it doesn’t mean that what she wrote after 9/11 was satire. Who else, besides you, claims that she’s a satirist? I can’t find any such references.
You have no evidence for your position. And if you read the interview I posted above, you’ll see that Coulter herself disagrees with you.
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Wooooo fight!
“Christian conquerors did the same thing for centuries.”
Of course, that was after Muslims conquered the lower third of Europe.
Of course, that was after Muslims conquered the lower third of Europe.
If by “the lower third of Europe,” you mean, “southern Spain,” I still wouldn’t know what your point was.
NH sir
someone should convert Ann Coulter to sanity
Name one government today which invades other countries and forcibly converts people to Christianity.
tap tap tap tap tap
Couldn’t think of one? OK, now rewind a century to 1900. Name one which did so then.
tap tap tap tap tap
Shall we go further? Did you honestly think you could gloss over these facts and pretend that the world we live in now is disconnected from the past?
The changes involved in the Enlightenment spread through the Western world, and one of the defining characteristics of this change was the end of forcible conversions. Most parts of the Muslim world never experienced an Enlightenment. Thus, apostasy is a capital offense in many countries or enclaves. (I would guess, off the top of my head, that a few places like European Turkey and Lebanon are good examples of exceptions who arguably did benefit from the Enlightenment.)
In any event, the point is that Coulter’s call to invade and convert is textbook Islamo-fascism, with a single word substitution. You really should pay attention to the news if you didn’t know that.
I notice you ignored my citation and repeated your claim:
Why did you do that?
Name one government today which invades other countries and forcibly converts people to Christianity.
I never claimed there were. Only that governments still forcibly converted people to Christianity after the Enlightenment (and well into the 20th century).
Name one government today which invades other countries and forcibly converts people to Islam.
tap tap tap tap tap
(You really should have that looked at.)
I notice you ignored my citation and repeated your claim:
Why did you do that?
It was accidental, sorry. But upon reading it, I see now that it’s irrelevant. David Horowitz (David Horowitz? Really? Who’s next, Michael Moore?) simply agrees with your position, without providing any evidence, whatsoever, that Coulter was writing satire. It’s like a young-earth creationist posting a link to Answers in Genesis to prove their point.
I notice you ignored the interview I posted where Coulter reiterates what she wrote.
Why did you do that?
Your position is, literally, nonsense, unless you can find an instance of Coulter saying she was writing satire. I’ve provided evidence to support my claim. You haven’t provided anything except for an essay by an ideologue of ill-repute, which agrees with your position. I’ll say it again: Ann Coulter disagrees with you.
Name one which did so in the 20th century.
Compare and contrast with the 15th century.
The Enlightenment wasn’t a specific moment in time, nor did it occur simultaneously throughout the Western world. But there was a change between the 15th and 19th centuries.
That change hasn’t occurred in most Muslim countries.
Hence, Ann Coulter’s remark is, to any rational person aware of the cultural differences between the West and Islam (in broad strokes), hilariously absurd.
I love that she wouldn’t give Alan Colmes the satisfaction of explaining the humor, which I took as ridiculing him for being so dense. Hell, if I were Jonathan Swift, I would insist on my deathbed that I were serious about eating the poor, so that the numskulls who didn’t get it would continue to be mocked by intelligent people.
I don’t claim David Horowitz is objective, but if you had bothered to read his whole column, he was taking Coulter to task for her book Treason, as he didn’t think it was suitable to be called satire.
I still find her columns to be hilarious, and anyone who thinks she is some awful monster needs a humerus transplant.
Pretty immature of whomever is stacking the karma against those who thought Radley’s joke was funny. At one point the positive karma was fairly overwhelming on those who approved. It just doesn’t make any sense that it would overturn that dramamtically so quickly.
We’ve all heard of proxy servers. Knock it the fuck off. Either that or your getting your friends to vote against everyone who disagrees with you and has the audacity to think its funny. You can knock that sad shit off, too.
God, can’t you see that the enlightenment is where all good comes from? It has nothing to do with religious scholars’s curiosity or the fact that Christianity does not command death and subjugation to all infidels.
Whatever, asshole. GFY
Riots broke out in Mangalore this year, after Christians tried to forcibly convert Hindus. Shit still goes on, lets not pretend otherwise.
“I still find her columns to be hilarious, and anyone who thinks she is some awful monster needs a humerus transplant.”
–Steve
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”
–Ann Coulter
Can you refer me to a good transplant center?
I read this hours ago, and had to come back to read the comments because this was so freakin’ funny.
I keep wondering if losing the power of her jaws might cause her to put too much stress on her hands from all the extra typing and next we’ll see that she’s also in casts for carpal tunnel syndrome. Would that be titled “All’s quiet…” ??
The point is that Libertarians allow everyone to speak their his/her mind freely and allow everyone to listen or ignore freely.
IF one lets the words of another bother one, the one is allowing the other to control the one.
If you don’t like it, don’t freakin listen. If it bothers you, grow thicker skin.
Sticks and stones …
Dominus providebit