@ G.A.Phillips:
The country is on an outlier right now, and (thankfully) the pendulum is about to swing back. I'm not generally a nasty person, but it gives me great pleasure to imagine you squirming in a future that you cannot understand or like. As for your request: there is this thing called "The Internet" and a great tool called "Google". Use it if you want to find apologies from "liberals" for objective mistakes or misstatements they have made. It's all there -- if you want to see it.

The only remaining argument, in my mind, is whether or not there is a substantial if grain of truth at the center of what she says. I submit to you that humor simply isn't funny, unless it has that quality; a grain of truth at the center of it.

And ill grant that we can take it to far, but as opposed to the the Liberal attack units who always seek extra collateral damage.

When respectable people on their own side continually denounce them, though, a line gets drawn.

I thought respectable was a matter of opinion.

and I can see this happening on the conservative side but who on the liberal side would even come tot grips with such things as the ones you speak of James?

I have yet to here a truthful, heartfelt, non side stepped, and or blame someone else apology and or condemnation from any type of liberal to or from a liberal and or to another liberal or to anyone else, I don't believe its in their learned nature.

At least with respect to the Edwards flaps, at least, Coulter was making very poor use of ironic commentary.

I'd argue that her use of language is performative - it's the fact of her utterances that's the point, not the semantic content per se. So we can get into very fine discussions over the use of inflammatory speech within various legitimate avenues of discussion, but that wouldn't have much to do with Coulter.

Moore is a propagandist on the order of Leni Riefenstahl, using lies and half truths to paint his opponents as something they demonstrably aren't.

First: were the techniques of Riefenstahl so terrible? Or was she bad only because of the ends she served? Beyond that, I find this comparison terribly inapt. What was distinctive about Riefenstahl was that her films used a powerful visual syntax; contra Moore, she didn't really make arguments or truth-claims so much as buttress ideology through her distinct visual & mythological language.

Moore is much more like your average Townhall columnist: he's advancing an argument, there are falsifiable truth claims, and a lot of falsifying to do.

Of course the "fairness" of the powerful is always different from the "fairness" of the downtrodden. Both being objective of course![lol]

Coulter uses slurs and suggests the world would be better if they were killed; Moore, per Adesnik, is insufficiently critical of the Cuban health care system.

Well, not quite. At least with respect to the Edwards flaps, at least, Coulter was making very poor use of ironic commentary. She was making allusions to the flap over Isaiah Washington's calling a Grey's Anatomy castmate "faggot" and Bill Maher's ironic quip about Dick Cheney being killed (which, in fairness, I presume Maher didn't mean literally, either).

Moore is a propagandist on the order of Leni Riefenstahl, using lies and half truths to paint his opponents as something they demonstrably aren't.

I'm more offended by Coulter than Moore simply because she's taken as speaking for conservatives and I'm, within the broad American context at least, a conservative. But they're both pretty vile.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing the equivalence.

I take it back, screw the fairness. Give me an otherwise substantive person on the RIGHT, who chose to be a provocateur, who was effectively shamed into oblivion by the country club set.
(See,I can create an assumed premise about you too.But please, let it go as I did the kook label -well,just between you and me,I did not- I'll allow that you're a possible exception to the rule.)

Your thoughts: