Elizabeth Edwards vs. Ann Coulter

[Guest Biblicist]

Actually, I just watched the whole thing on YouTube again, and there are a few minor errors but it's pretty much verbatim what Coulter, Edwards and Matthews said. Edwards asked in a reasoned, polite tone for Coulter to lay off personal attacks that, apparently, started when Coulter made the joke about the Edwards' late young son. Coulter is all arrogance and sniping, and doesn't even begin to consider Edwards's point. Of course, who expected she would? Watch her try to spin it - Edwards wasn't asking her to "stop talking." She merely asked her to talk about the important things - the issues - and stop degrading the dialogue surrounding politics. Coulter doesn't even respond respectfully to Edwards, she just smirks.

As I recall, Chris Matthews tells her she has "all the time in the world" to respond then imediately interupts her. Sounds like liberal media doing it's best to control what we know. How do you know the video and transcript were not edited for television and the internet? It is very rare, almost never, that an interview is shown in it's entirety.

[forrestkc]

To call Bush a coward or a murderer would be a personal attack.

Bush has been called both of these and worse, many times. I don't see you defending him,

Anytime I have ever heard someone refer to him, or any president for that matter a coward or a murderer, I defend that president. I disagree with Bush on a lot of issues. However, I do not believe him to be a bad person. In fact, personally I think he is fairly likable, the kind of guy you could easily talk to over a beer. I simply disagree with him. Sometimes I really disagree with him, but I don't hate him by any measure.

Let me add that from a psychological perspective, it is indicative of a personality disorder to hate those whom you simply disagree with.

[georgesbluegirl]

As I recall, Chris Matthews tells her she has "all the time in the world" to respond then imediately interupts her. Sounds like liberal media doing it's best to control what we know. How do you know the video and transcript were not edited for television and the internet? It is very rare, almost never, that an interview is shown in it's entirety.

Guess you have a point - when Bill O makes blunders, they get edited (see: Malmedy. That was a disgrace). However, this has been pretty well covered and the video doesn't show signs of being edited (and wasn't it live? I didn't see the original broadcast so I can't weigh in on that). Sure, Matthews isn't shy about interjecting, but Coulter was interrupting Edwards the whole time she was trying to make her point. If Coulter had a better response to make, she's not one who would be deterred from making it by Matthews cutting off her response time. This is what she had to say. She said it. She turned a wife and mother's polite request into a call to "stop speaking" and refused to back down an inch.

[forrestkc]

As I recall, Chris Matthews tells her she has "all the time in the world" to respond then imediately interupts her. Sounds like liberal media doing it's best to control what we know. How do you know the video and transcript were not edited for television and the internet? It is very rare, almost never, that an interview is shown in it's entirety.

First off, this whole liberal media spiel is just conservatives trying to work the refs. Conservatives like Ann Coulter get represented in the opinionated media at least 2 to 1 over their liberal counterparts. Just the same, ok, lets give her a full hour to respond. What is she possibly going to say to redeem her actions? What is she possibly going to say to explain why wishing death on someone you disagree with and making fun of them loosing a child is really not a bad thing? I mean come on. The only thing she could have possibly said to redeem herself in anyway is: "You know you are right Mrs. Edwards. I can't imagine what its like to lose a child and it was horrible of me to joke about it. You are absolutely right in what you say, and from now on, I will not make personal attacks against those I disagree with and just stick to the issues".

Do you honestly think that given an entire lifetime to explain herself she would ever say anything like that?

You are defending the indefensible.

[Guest Biblicist]

To call Bush a coward or a murderer would be a personal attack.

Bush has been called both of these and worse, many times. I don't see you defending him,

Anytime I have ever heard someone refer to him, or any president for that matter a coward or a murderer, I defend that president. I disagree with Bush on a lot of issues. However, I do not believe him to be a bad person. In fact, personally I think he is fairly likable, the kind of guy you could easily talk to over a beer. I simply disagree with him. Sometimes I really disagree with him, but I don't hate him by any measure.

Let me add that from a psychological perspective, it is indicative of a personality disorder to hate those whom you simply disagree with.

And when President Bush is called nasty names and you defend him, what do you think of the person calling him those names? Simply telling it like it is?

What type of disorder is it for someone to go around calling other's names, no matter how true they are? From your psychological perspective.

I would be happy to give you the Biblical perspective on that if you like.

[The Lorax]

I just finished reading through this thread and I am deeply saddened that anyone would defend such hateful speech and ill will as that which emanates from Anne Coulter. It is not Christian.

[jewelz123]

forrest, using personal attacks on someone is not the way to show them that it's wrong and hurtful. . .

I am not making an attack, just an observation. Anyone can observe that Ann Coulter is a vile hatemonger. For example, stating that someone that you simply disagree with should have been "killed by the terrorists", is indicative of someone who is a vile hatemonger. If I pointed out that a Neo-Nazi was a hatemonger, no one would be accusing me of making a personal attack against them. They would assume I was pointing out the obvious.

To call Bush a coward or a murderer would be a personal attack. To call someone like Ann Coulter a hatemonger is simply an observation about her that any decent individual would make going by her words and actions.

Ask yourself, would you say the kind of things about people you simply disagree with that Ann Coulter says about the people that she simply disagrees with? What would you think of someone in your workplace saying that they wish that a coworker would have been killed by the terrorists?

Here is her quote:

[Guest Biblicist]

forrest, using personal attacks on someone is not the way to show them that it's wrong and hurtful. . .

I am not making an attack, just an observation. Anyone can observe that Ann Coulter is a vile hatemonger. For example, stating that someone that you simply disagree with should have been "killed by the terrorists", is indicative of someone who is a vile hatemonger. If I pointed out that a Neo-Nazi was a hatemonger, no one would be accusing me of making a personal attack against them. They would assume I was pointing out the obvious.

To call Bush a coward or a murderer would be a personal attack. To call someone like Ann Coulter a hatemonger is simply an observation about her that any decent individual would make going by her words and actions.

Ask yourself, would you say the kind of things about people you simply disagree with that Ann Coulter says about the people that she simply disagrees with? What would you think of someone in your workplace saying that they wish that a coworker would have been killed by the terrorists?

Here is her quote: "if I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

This is of course after the same vile individual called John Edwards a "faggot". You can watch her say right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCeqZLrhkvQ

Okay - I find this very distressing. The above quote is OUT OF CONTEXT! For this quote to be twisted in a christian website by a christian is defenseless! Finish the quote if you say you are quoting - that is not the point she was making and if you were listening you would know it. There is a whole sentence missing from your text! If you weren't listening then you heard what you wanted to hear and have spewed enough on your own! There is no point to this thread if it is an I hate Ann Coulter thread. (who is the hatemonger?) As a christian I expect better from my brothers and sisters than this kind of garbage.

[The Lorax]

Okay - I find this very distressing. The above quote is OUT OF CONTEXT! For this quote to be twisted in a christian website by a christian is defenseless! Finish the quote if you say you are quoting - that is not the point she was making and if you were listening you would know it. There is a whole sentence missing from your text! If you weren't listening then you heard what you wanted to hear and have spewed enough on your own! There is no point to this thread if it is an I hate Ann Coulter thread. (who is the hatemonger?) As a christian I expect better from my brothers and sisters than this kind of garbage.

Um, I've heard the statement in context and it is utterly foul and revolting. Are you really defending it?

There is no point to this thread if it is an I hate Ann Coulter thread. (who is the hatemonger?)

It started as an "I hate Elizabeth Edwards" thread. Is that better for you?

Furthermore, I don't think anyone here has said they hate Anne Coulter. Most of us are saying we don't put up with hatred at all. That's the whole point. Hatred isn't Christian.

[senerhu]

Well, I'm pretty sure Clinton is not a rapist, for one thing. An adulterer, obviously, but rape is a different matter. Sorry, you might agree with what Coulter stands for (if you do, I'm praying hard for you), but the bottom line is that the personal attacks she makes on others are often just mean, and E. Edwards is right to point out that it lowers the standard for political discourse. Is it too much to ask intelligence?

The day she attacked 9/11 widows was too much for me to even stomach. I avoid listening to her when possible now.

I think its likely clinton had contested intimate realitions with several women who were not willing participants...

to put it nicely...