She doesn't. She has one she made up. I still have yet to see one instance where anybody was prevented from arguing with points the widows have been trying to make. The widows issues are those of the 9/11 commission and its implementation. he linked those issues which are the issues the widows advocate. He not only didn't try and stop anyone from arguing against the widows positions he invited anyone on Coulter's side to say which portions they disagreed with. Nobody has responded with that or incidents of widow critics being silenced and prevented from arguing.
It's odd that Fox News brought this psycho back on again. I guess they hope to convince their viewers of being fair and balanced with their blunt shout downs.
That Fox News anchor had me until the stupid old argument resurfaced: "If you don't love America, then why don't you leave." So you have to think America is perfect for it to be your home? If your sink is broken and you complain about it, does the same person say to leave your home? That's the most broken argument I've heard recently during political debates. So when a woman complains about her husband are you supposed to say, "If you don't love your husband, then why don't you leave him."
Made up? Why is it " made up" that these widows have no right to the prominence they've been given by the media? Back when this first brewed, wasn't there some attention paid to another group of 9/11 widows who were polar opposites of these Long Island widows? Where and who are they? Why don't we know and hear about them? Who is he? Isn't this brouhaha about Ann Coulter the very thing you are saying does not exist? It is easiest for people to attack her over-the-top language but then they won't even get past that and consider her argument seriously. Who cares what kind of endorsement comes out of a one-issue concern? And what termerity to even think you should offer an endorsement?
Coulter's argument isn't about that they are given more coverage than others. As you say in your other defense on this page, it is about a perceived condition where they aren't allowed to be argued with because they are 9/11 widows. I heard of no more than 2 widows who were close to being the opposite of these women. I know that there was a larger group around the time of the 9/11 commission, but they were on the same side as the 4 widows that Coulter attacks. batman jones Absolutely not. Nobody is preventing her or trying to prevent her from arguing with anyone including the 9/11 widows. The fact that she accuses them of being harpies, witches, and enjoying their husbands deaths did invoke a reaction. It invoked a reaction because it deserved one, and it isn't because people believe the widows points to be untouchable and protected due to their widowhood. If Coulter attacked any group of widows in such a dispicable manner she would face criticism. It is totally ironic that you mention attacking her over the top language rather than addressing her 'point'. Her attack is nothing but over the top language, and she doesn't focus on the main issues the widows have been focussed on from the get-go. Rather than discuss the issues of the 9/11 commission and their recommendations, Coulter attacks them(even though they never used over the top language). Of course she is going to catch flak for that. As far as Ann and addressing her language rather than her points, there is a reason for that. Ann doesn't have a point. It is made up. There isn't one instance of anyone being prevented from arguing with the widows positions. There is backlash when people make personal attacks on the widows themselves, as their should be. Ann's point is one that she and other talk show hosts, and strategists made up. I am still waiting to see proof that it actually exists. If I do see that proof, then I can address Ann's issue she brings up rather than her over the top language.
Julie Banderas was definitely out of line in the interview. Her job as a reporter is to be neutral--something she failed at terribly. But I'm not surprised that Fox News would pull something like this. It was all done on purpose for ratings which puts Fox News in the same category as Jerry Springer show.........Although, I might excuse Julie since she is one hot woman! I think she's half Colombian and White if I'm not mistaken.
I think it is just implicit. What has all the fuss been about when Coulter called these women "harpies?" She was not supposed to use that term or another term like it because these women were 9/11 widows.
The fuss was about Coulter being mean and using personal attacks on people who have never used personal attacks on anyone else in public. She was not supposed to use that term, because the women don't deserve it. They haven't gone the personal attack route and have stuck to the issues. All Coulter or anyone else had to do was follow in kind. Coulter was not supposed to call them names at all, because they didn't do anything to warrant that kind of behavior. They have lost their husbands, and Ann Coulter attacks that and accuses the woman of all sorts of horrible motives without one shred of evidence that what she is saying is basis in reality. Whether you defended her before you just did above. You may act like defaming widows who lost their husbands in 9/11 attacks is a perefectly fine mode of discussion and debate in this country, but I won't. I believe decency prevents that. Decency may not be something you want to defend, but I will. I will especially defend it when it is lacking towards woman who suffered, and didn't initially use personal attacks in their efforts, nor have they even responded with personal attacks back at Coulter. You get bent out of shape when someone uses the term bigot or liar. That doesn't mean anyone is being prevented from using those terms. And unlike Coulter none of us on the board start crying, whining, and foaming at the mouth claiming that because you don't like those terms used we aren't allowed to criticize people.
But people here and elsewhere unleash on Bush and Rumsfeld and Condi without restraint and at will? I agree that Coulter's language was in bad taste but I also think the chastisement of her has gone overboard. I think Coulter would say that they abused their "power." You are doing exactly what you say no one is doing: You are defending these women strictly on the basis of them being widows! I have said repeatedly that Coulter went over the line with her language. Why are you ignorning or overlooking that? I get bent out of shape from the over-use. Batman tends to go with "bigot" while you like "liar." I've not wiped a bit of foam yet-- not even beer. If there is no issue with shutting down Coulter, why is everyone talking about how she shouldn't have said what she said? Isn't it patently obvious?
Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are in power running a war that is responsible for loss of life, America's standing in the world, supression of the rights of U.S. citizens etc. There may have been pointless and wreckless attacks against them. But nobody really defends those that are guilty of the more pointless of those attacks. On the other hand these women advocated the 9/11 comission and its recommendations. They aren't responsible for starting a war. They didn't lie about any information in order to pursue an elective war, or try and operate outside the constitution. They don't have any power. They are out of power and tried to get the folks in power to do something about the cause of their husband's death. They didn't have any power to abuse. I will try to make this as simple as I can. You don't seem to get it. 1. I am not defending the women just because they are widows. I am defending them because they haven't done anything to be accused and slandered by anybody. They advocated policy directly related to the deaths of their husbands. I would defend anyone from that, whether or not they are widows. 2. But I also have no problem admitting that I feel extra protective and angry at slander of widows. That is even more true of widows who lost their husband to the horrible terrorist attacks we suffered on 9/11. Furthermore I don't think it is wrong that these widows, or widows of service men are afforded extra respect they have earned it. It seems like that would be a characteristic of a civilized, and decent society. What I find apalling is that you believe victims of 9/11 should not be afforded in additional respect. However, that doesn't mean that people can't argue against the positions of these women, or war widows. It doesn't mean that if the women started calling people names and accusing them of enjoying the deaths of others that I might understand lashing back at them. But in this case that didn't happen. The widows didn't attack anyone. They merely acted in their interest, that of their departed husbands, and quite possible for all of us. I promise that if Bush and his crew don't lie, I won't call them liars. I will also point out that talking about their lies and deeds are matters of substance. They deal directly with issues and policy. Calling people witches, harpies and saying that they are enjoying their husbands deaths, does not deal in any way shape or form with substance.
FB: Seems like you repeat yourself every three posts here. I'm amazed you have that much patience. But I'll say it again, as a sort of FB cheerleading: Bingo. Well said.
Thanks. This really makes me understand my severe limitations at communicating. I always think I am being mostly clear when I reply, but apparently I am not. I just keep trying to make the message in as many ways as I can, hoping that giddy will understand what I am saying. If it helps me write and formulate my thoughts better, then that is a good thing.
FB, You inability to have a substantive discussion with giddy is no reflection on your communication skills. In case you haven't noticed, he is deliberately obtuse to the point of psychosis. Or in other words you are beating your head against a brick wall.
As far as I know, Coulter wrote one sentence in a book. If your side wants to keep giving it attention and help her sell more books, go right ahead. She didn't even title the book after them... surprised? As soon as they get on the news they have power. Just not buying your argument. Then why did you include it in your description of who they were when you were explaining why they should not be assailed? Again, it was one sentence in a book. Keep it alive as long as you like. Ann Coulter will love you for it. Covering your tracks, huh? You do and did defend these women just because they are widows. I tend to agree with you, but my criticism of Coulter is far more mild than yours. Don't you realize that your side is making a cottage industry FOR COULTER out of this one sentence?
The fact that it wasn't the main theme for her book, doesn't make it any more or less valid. Then they have less power than anyone in govt. and less power than Ann Coulter. Because that is an accurate description of who they are. Like I said it isn't the only reason why they shouldn't be attacked, but it is part of it. Common decency tells a person you don't personally attack a widow who lost their loved ones in a national tragedy, especially if they weren't attacked first. Actually it was more than just one sentence. I didn't defend them just because they were widows. I would defend anyone who was attacked on a personal level when they did nothing to deserve it. I will am more deeply affected when those who are attacked are victims of the 9/11 tragedy. I could care less if people buy her book. It is their loss, not mine. If defending victims from those kinds of attacks sells somebody else's books, then so be it.
