READER COMMENTS ON
"MSNBC Names Ann Coulter 'World's Worst' for Posting BRAD BLOGGER's Private Information"
(148 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
KestrelBrighteyes
said on 12/4/2005 @ 3:15 pm PT...
If I were Cornell, I think I'd start talking to an attorney, and maybe even file a report at the local police department regarding the continued harassment. It's a dangerous world we live in - you never know WHAT kind of crazy might decide to act upon such information.
Anybody taken a snapshot of Coulter's website yet, for evidence in case there are lawsuits, and ESPECIALLY in case Cornell or someone in her family are injured because of Coulter's stupidity?
What are the stalker laws in that state regarding posting of personal information on a website?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Jules
said on 12/4/2005 @ 3:48 pm PT...
Hi;
Just stopped by after reading Media Matters - O'Lielly's favorite. The video I watched was with Bill and MSNBC'S Worst, Ann Coulter. Seems both she and Bill have to have security and in the clip she mentioned that she'd like to make liberals have to get it too. I don't know if she was referring to what she did to Ms. Cornell - but her actions and that statement seem to back up intent to do just that.
It amazes me the number of mental midgets that follow her and feel it is their duty to harass and make death threats on her behalf. Do they think she's gonna blow them for doing it? I wonder if that Adam's apple she has would freak them out close up. Would they feel cheated ???
It certainly puts in perspective that saying about getting the government you deserve. With all the asshats running around this country - I guess we sort of do.
As Teri Garr put it this morning on CBS - Please think before you vote and don't drink before you vote. LOL
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Susan Elizabeth
said on 12/4/2005 @ 4:04 pm PT...
Dear Liberal Men !
mAnn Coulter has Fantasies about you Raping her / him !
I really think the troll flatters itself too much !
I have never met any guy ( but especially a lib or dem . guy ) who wanted to rape the transvestite !
Most people in general just question the big adams apple !
sheesh ~
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
KestrelBrighteyes
said on 12/4/2005 @ 4:10 pm PT...
This message is for Lydia Cornell:
I did a little research.
Whether or not Ms Coulter realizes it, I'm pretty sure she has, by posting your personal information, and by leaving it there after you requested that it be removed, violated the laws against stalking (attorneys, back me up on this, please) You are lucky in the fact that California is ahead of most of the rest of the country in their stalking laws. You need to talk to your local authorities, and consult an attorney who specializes in stalking ASAP.
Black's Law Dictionary defines stalking as:
"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person."
Being a "third person" to the stalking - as in being the one to post a person's personal information so that others start harassing them by calling, emailing, etc, is also considered stalking and is against the law in some states.
This is advice from www.crimelibrary.com:
It is very important that should you become the target of a stalker's attention, that any and all communication is documented. E-mails should be printed and copied to disk, phone calls should be logged for time and date, and written communication should be kept for future reference.
For more information:
http://www.crimelibrary....ogy/cyberstalking/6.html
You should also contact your ISP regarding any threatening emails you're receiving, and you can do an IP trace and contact the provider of the persons sending the threatening or harassing email - if they're violating policy, they can lose service and/or be prosecuted by the ISP.
Please, Lydia, don't take this lightly - the world is full of lunatics, and some of them are dangerous.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/4/2005 @ 4:53 pm PT...
I sent Brad my response to the Lydia Cornell situation. I am pretty sure I am one of the "fake conservatives who refused to condemn Coulter". Both Brad and I know this is a mischaracterization of my position and what I told him. I hope Brad will be fair to his readers and post my complete response himself... As always, I give Brad the opportunity to come on my show and say his peace. I hope he'll give me that same respect.
Anthony Bonna
Student
Georgetown University
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Bobby
said on 12/4/2005 @ 5:07 pm PT...
Lydia, please go after that bitch with every lawyer you can get. She is wrong and maybe you suing her and possibly muzzling her in court is exactly what she needs.
She's able to say horrible things about people and yet never gets punished for it all the while calling for punishment of everyone who disagrees with her.
GET HER WHILE YOU CAN!!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Farky Tahesh
said on 12/4/2005 @ 5:09 pm PT...
Poor, misunderstood Anthony. So sorry if Brad is not treating you in the silver-spoon, "mommy-buy-that-for-me" way to which you are obviously accustomed...I mean, how else does one account for an (alleged) Georgetown student writing "say his peace"? Clearly you are not there based on your SAT scores.
Illiteracy is the new black, it would seem.
Farky Tahesh
Employed Parent
Minneapolis
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
unclesmeldey
said on 12/4/2005 @ 5:16 pm PT...
Once upon a time, Ann Coulter was an interesting public figure--quick with a quip and (comparatively speaking) much easier on the eyes that the typical talking head. This was her primary function in the media, and the only reason she is known today outside of her family and (undoubtedly miniscule) circle of friends.
As she continues to age, and her looks lose their appeal, her personality has become increasingly odious and her perspective has taken on an almost paranoiac hostility.
It all began when either Time or Newsweek featured a photo of her on the cover that she found insufficiently flattering. It was all she could discuss for over a week, and she has never really recovered from the perceived injury occasioned by the fish-eye lens.
Meanwhile, the wattle becomes more prominent, the haircut become less age-appropriate, and her relevance diminishes.
She lacks the intellect of a Peggy Noonan or the photogeneity of her latest victim. Thus the shrewishness, and therefore, she will soon become bereft of utility and tossed aside by her erstwhile admirers like a washed-up mistress.
Her days as right-wing cheesecake are waning rapidly. For the nonce, she is frantic, lashing out at anything that might attract attention.
In the meantime, the best response--both pragmatically and vindictively--is to simply ignore her. She'll soon be a middle-aged used-to-be.
Although the aforementioned lawsuit might accelerate the process quite agreeably.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/4/2005 @ 5:29 pm PT...
Dear Mr. Tahesh,
Liberals are so obsessed with 'peace' I figured I'd make a dry attempt at humor. I'm sorry you had to resort to a personal attack. I am at Georgetown based on my own merit. If you weren't so judgemental, you would have researched my story and found out that I haven't had it as easy as you would like to portray. It just takes a simple lexisnexis search for "Bonna" in Florida.
http://www.washingtondcnewsday.com/node/6252
Liberal democrats chose to attack me for living the American dream.
link
I challenge Brad to present the other side of this debate instead of simply mischaracterizing my point of view and poking fun at my bad satire. This should not be a brainwash blog, but a source for the exchange of ideas. Hopefully Brad is willing to exchange some...
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/4/2005 @ 5:31 pm PT...
And keep in mind, Brad was the one who contacted me. This didn't happen the other way around...
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Kiernanne
said on 12/4/2005 @ 5:34 pm PT...
I agree with KestrelBrighteyes that Ms. Coulter's actions and the actions of her "minions" very likely constitute stalking. I hope Ms. Cornell will consult an attorney and take whatever steps are available to assure the safety of her and her family, and to stop Ms. Coulter and her insane posse.
What a bizarre world Ms. Coulter inhabits! What a vicious person. The possibility of jail time or a lengthy period of probation + the certainty of big fat fines would be just the ticket for Ms. Coulter, et. al. Unbelievable!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
jazzlover
said on 12/4/2005 @ 5:55 pm PT...
"Liberals are so obsessed with 'peace' I figured I'd make a dry attempt at humor."
Right, Anthony. We're "obsessed" with peace. Aren't WE just the biggest assholes! Another guy I like - Jesus Christ, - he, too, had that same weak obsession. What a fuckin' piece of work He was, eh Anthony? Glad we have right-thinking people like you to remind us of what hicks we are.
"Peace". What assholes!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/4/2005 @ 6:01 pm PT...
Maybe "peace" was the wrong word to use. Liberals are obsessed with "surrender" and that rarely leads to peace.
I love the new Christian Democrats - using the Lord's name and expletives in the same paragraph to prove an argument. You guys definitely are a piece of work.
If you all are interested, I will post in the comments section my response to the Lydia Cornell debacle if Brad doesn't post it first... Again, I invite Brad on my show next week and thank Lydia for agreeing to reschedule...
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Emperor Theodore I
said on 12/4/2005 @ 6:17 pm PT...
Brad..........her altered mental state obviously comes from sniffing too many of Dubya's farts as her head is securely buried up his ass!....*LOL*.........keep up the good work............ted
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Ragz
said on 12/4/2005 @ 6:36 pm PT...
And I love the Christian Republicans.. some of them will use the Lord's name and jingoistic calls for "killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity" in the same paragraph. Others will defend the first group for saying it, while whining about the other side's use of profanity since they can't actually respond to the comment.
And "obsessed with peace" --- heh --- you really are just a young, angry 17-year-old ain't'cha? Flex some of that American muscle, boy!
And before you say "hey, I explained that already," I don't actually care, so save it.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Doug
said on 12/4/2005 @ 6:36 pm PT...
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/4/2005 @ 6:44 pm PT...
I wish the debate would not focus on me; rather, I wish responses would be germane to the posted topic.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Thomas
said on 12/4/2005 @ 7:22 pm PT...
Hey Brad, big fan. I can't believe some of these Coulter supporters- they'll defend anything. But, just to be fair to this Anthony kid, you can say either "say your peace" or "say your piece." It has a lot to do with the context of the phrase. I really don't think its fair to fault this kid on that. Anyway, keep up the good work.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Barry Champlain
said on 12/4/2005 @ 7:43 pm PT...
For those of you who have long fumed at Ms. Coulter's bullying and her invisible "get out of jail free card" which seems to absolve her from her most socially-inexcusable threats and comments... take heart!
The job that was done to her personally in the Showtime anthology series "Masters Of Horror", and the Joe Dante-directed episode entitled "Homecoming" is not something Ann will be living down for quite some time. If ever.
As it is technically science fiction (one of history's greatest vehicles for social protest during intolerant times; cref: "The Twilght Zone"), the blatant depiction of Ann Coulter as a nasty, opportunistic and sexually deviant Washington power whore won't be getting Dante or anyone sued anytime soon. But you'd have to be mentally slow not to understand who the blonde villain is. And the depiction of her, I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
So sleep well tonight, knowing that no matter what invective she may hurl; no matter how arrogantly she may smirk at her perceived enemies; no matter what little brouhahas like the subject of this thread she may generate, Ann Coulter is a truly unhappy camper this weekend.
I just don't see how she can show her face in any DC social situation, without a ripple of derisive chortling passing through the crowd. I'm talking the kind of embarassment that lives, until you no longer do.
Sometimes we have to take our victories from the oddest little places. Were I wearing a hat, it would be off to this mindblowingly couragous teleplay, which didn't merely take out Coulter to the point where she's rocked personally by the insult. This has got to be the single most offensive truth to power spoken in mass media to the Bush administration, about all of it, from Day One... EVER.
I believe it will be seen again Thursday night. Change plans if necessary. This is required viewing. Trust me.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
secularhumanizinevoluter
said on 12/4/2005 @ 8:46 pm PT...
A.Bonna...just another warmongering coward of the right. Wassamatta chickenhawk, lose your balls somewhere? Ever have any? If you DID have any you would quit school and join the big green machine and do your best to help the Coward in Chief's war on whatever. But NOOOOOO, you're just another pudgy faced little right wing neoconazi wannabe...ain'tcha.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/4/2005 @ 9:08 pm PT...
"Secularhumanizevoluter"... Glad to see you are elevating the debate. I have unfortunately faced such criticisms from other left-wing outlets and they have been answered by liberals and conservatives alike. http://operationyellowel...-republican-club-in.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a sample of what the liberals had to say about me...
At 7:05 PM, Sue said...
damn imperalist fascist chickenhawks, how about posting his phone number so we can all give that little freaky pussy a call!
At 8:19 PM, Frenchy Lamour said...
Sent my letter:
I just read your article about proud Young Republican Anthony Bonna's fundraiser for school. However, I think his tactic is unnecessary: Mr. Bonna should raise the money he needs and serve his country at the same time.
It's a fact that the US Army, the Marines, and the National Guard are all facing recruiting shortfalls, which is making it more difficult to win the war in Iraq. Our soldiers in the field have probably lost count of their tours of duty, and knowing that enlistment is down can't be good for morale. As a Republican, I am sure Mr. Bonna supports the President and will answer the call to enlistment he made at Fort Bragg two weeks ago. Not only is military service good for the country, it's a good way to raise funds for college through the GI Bill. As Mr. Bonna points out "If you want to make decisions that affect the world, you need to really live the world," and service in the miltary will give him the experience he needs.
Mr. Bonna, your country needs you, and I hope you will answer the call.
At 8:41 PM, Anonymous said...
he's gonna puss out, little weenie.
At 8:42 PM, Anonymous said...
he's probably gay so he can't join...
At 6:15 PM, Paul said...
"It's always been my philosophy to reach as far as you can," said Anthony, who graduated from St. Lucie West Centennial High School last month.
In the Army, you can Be All That You Can Be, Anthony.
--------------------------------------------------------
The wait to see if Brad is willing to post a different point of view about the Cornell situation or if he is going to scoff at this opportunity for fairness continues. Brad is aware of my emailed point of view as he acknowledged he recieved it in a phone conversation earlier today. I again extend Brad an invitation to come on The Right Stuff this Friday and hope he accepts.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 12/4/2005 @ 9:28 pm PT...
Anthony #21,
You seem to be quite the self-promoter as evidenced by the fundraisers to pay your tuition (a brilliant idea that I wish I had thought of in college) and the O'reilly-esque "come on my show or you're a coward, sir" tactics. I hope Brad accepts the invitation as it is his continued publicity and involvement that sustain my support for this blog.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
Christian Q.
said on 12/4/2005 @ 9:29 pm PT...
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
G.
said on 12/4/2005 @ 9:35 pm PT...
Anthony,
You just mentioned that you wished people would not make this about you and then you turn right around and post reponses that people made to you and then complain about them and make it personal.
I do not undertsand how anyone can have exclusively conservative or exclusively liberal positions on issues.
I also do not know what living the American dream has to do with being a Republican anymore.
One thing I do know is that the GOP in this Country has gone down the tubes and fast.
It is controlled by the radical right-wing religious faction and frankly has nothing to do with the American dream.
Bush has made some horrendeous mistakes - and maybe worse - he may have been, not just negligent and unintelligent, but deceptive.
This we all know now.
We need new leadership in the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 election.
Anthony - I am afraid Bush has ruined your political party - for now.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 12/4/2005 @ 10:45 pm PT...
Anthony said:
The wait to see if Brad is willing to post a different point of view about the Cornell situation or if he is going to scoff at this opportunity for fairness continues.
Uh, Anthony, unless I'm wrong, you've *been* posting your "different point of view about the Cornell situation" here. Which is more than can be said for your hero Ann Coulter who doesn't allow for such open comments on her board where she posted the phone of Cornell and her family.
Which you apparently condoned on your radio show last week. So much for that old conservative idea of demanding accountability from those who have done wrong. Like so many other things, apparently the phony conservatives like yourself were just kidding.
(17 years old and supports the war, but hasn't signed up to fight for it? What a shock. Let others fight for you, as you let others pay for your college education instead of working your way through it.)
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
M Oropeza
said on 12/4/2005 @ 11:45 pm PT...
I think that what Ann Coulter did is stalking by proxy. Ussing code to incite her fans ie weak willed minons to violence. Given the violence threatened in some of the E-mails, which I'm sure Ann Coulter was aware her fans are capable of. I think that if any violence does occur Ann's computer e-mails from her fans will not only liklely reveal the perpertor. But also that Ann was aware of the danger her minions are to public safty when riled. Ann has in a sense knowingly pulled the trigger.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
Barbara
said on 12/5/2005 @ 1:07 am PT...
I think Brad should reconsider his decision not to post whatever personal contact information he may have on Coulter. I once saw it reported in the NYT (a publication that generally holds Coulter and her books to be beneath its notice) that her Manhattan address is a closely-guarded secret because of FAN stalking, and that there had been an injunction against a troublesome one.
This presents an interesting study in hypocrisy, though not one as satisfying as, say, a pro-Bush commentator with priorities other than serving in the boy genius's war. Religious rightists demand that the rest of us respect thier views when those views require action in the public sphere, like bashing gays or forbidding birth control. Bush himself supposedly believes that God made him president to inavde Iraq. Little is made of this kind of thinking (a kind that gets less well-connected people put on major meds) out of respect for the man's religion.
Now we have Coulter and her less well-balanced fans. No doubt some extra-chromosome lunkhead believes that God has a plan for him and her. And what is her response? Does she respect his sincere religious belief? Whatever the worst that could happen to her (or him, but not to any offspring, for obvious reasons), it would be better than the results of Bush's beliefs.
Please reconsider.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
Armadillious
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:00 am PT...
Ann Coulter is a typical returd psycho. She is a pastey faced, spastic, coke head who should be keelhauled under condi rice's supertanker.
If she lives through it - it should be repeated again.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
Bob O'Neal Sr
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:09 am PT...
Ann Coulter a pervert?
Way back in Feb, 1999 on Politically Incorrect,
Ms Coulter called Pres Clinton a pervert. Clinton
was accuse of exposing himself to Miss Jones.
Each time Ms Coulter appeared on P.I. back then, she would flash the TV cameras. On that night she had on a very short black dress and each time she cross her legs you could see her white underpants. Mr. Clinton may have exposed himself to one and Ms Coulter to millions, so who is the bigger pervert? I do have to say that she did looked pretty good for a right-wing nut.
Bob O'Neal Sr
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Joel
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:26 am PT...
Interestingly you cannot send comments to Coulter as she no longer takes e-mails, but instead has her forum. I have tried to register 3 times and have never been activated. Do you think the negative e-mails I have sent her have kept me out of her little sycophantic town hall meeting?
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:27 am PT...
Maybe MSNBC could have male and female "Worst Person in the World" categories, sort of like the Academy Awards recognizes "Best Actor" and "Best Actress." They could also break the award down into other sub-headings. Here are a few ideas:
"Worst (media) Female" JUDITH MILLER
"Worst (media) Male" BILL O'REILLY
"Worst (political) Female" KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
"Worst (political) Male" tie between:
TOM DE LAY
TOM FEENEY
TOM NOE
TOM TANCREDO
"Worst (show biz) Female" RUNAWAY BRIDE
"Worst (show biz) Male" MICHAEL JACKSON
"Worst Female Liar" BERNADETTE NOE
"Worst Male Liar: tie between
GEORGE W. BUSH
DICK CHENEY
SCOTTIE MCCLELLAN
I. LEWIS LIBBY
JOHN BOLTON
KENNETH BLACKWELL
GROVER NORQUIST
KEN MEHLMANN
"Worst Female Impersonator" ANN COULTER
"Worst Male Impersonator" JEFF GANNON
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
Knowmad
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:44 am PT...
OH ANNIE . . . I KNOW YOU'RE LISTENING:
I know it's hard, but you're just going to have to face it girl. Unfortunately you're unattractive (physically and - likely as a result - otherwise), grotesquely misguided and out-of-touch, and obviously unintelligent - how else to explain your continual Bush licking.
The thing is, you can't make up for these with a thoughtless attitude and a vicious mouth. You're just going to have to accept your limitations like the man you are, or wish you were.
While we're at it, maybe you could do we obviously insane, progressive thinkers a favour. If you could hook up with Mehlman, it would allow us to get a laugh and shake our heads in disbelief without having to waste the time to look you both up; kind of a one-stop-shopping deal. And there is that eerie physical resemblance.
Seriously woman, you have a problem. No? Here's proof. Simply ask yourself how often the concepts of love (for others) and compassion cross your mind in a day.
Get it?
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
niko
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:49 am PT...
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 12/5/2005 @ 7:25 am PT...
I can only hope that Coldher and O'Really? get put on the Board of Directors of Diebold.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
DragonFly
said on 12/5/2005 @ 7:42 am PT...
Ms. Cornell,
I beseech you to follow the advice of those who are encouraging you to take legal action.
This I suggest in part for you own welfare, and also because this spoiled lunatic desperately needs to be stopped before she does any further harm.
If she gets away with this business, she will continue to escalate her increasingly dangerous tactics.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
buzzzed
said on 12/5/2005 @ 7:52 am PT...
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
...
gflores
said on 12/5/2005 @ 8:17 am PT...
Coulter es un hombre muy feo. Tiene cara de caballo. His/Her eyes, which are sunken due to drugs or who knows, reveal his/her soul....
Perhaps he/she is trying to find out which gender species he/she belongs to. Es muy pendeja/o
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 8:36 am PT...
I have consistently said I didn't want this debate to be about me. Brad contacted me because of a radio show I did; I didn't ask to be involved in this blog. I also didnt ask to be attacked personally, but when attacked personally I will defend myself. I only posted the news articles because people insulted me personally and I'm not going to lay down and take insults.
Yesterday I sent Brad some bullet points of what I believe about this case. I was hoping he would post them on his Blog (there is a difference between columnists and bloggers). Nonetheless I will post them here and hopefully we can talk about these points instead of me.
Host of The Right Stuff on Georgetown Radio Defends Freedom; Refuses to Meddle in Private Dispute Between Two Citizens
Washington D.C. --- December 4, 2005 ---
Dear Brad,
I am glad that you took the initiative and called me in regards to your problems with last week's show. We enjoy giving the liberal viewpoint air time and having an open and frequent dialogue with liberals. I always like to hear when someone disagrees with me. The reason I am writing you this letter is two-fold. The first reason is quite simple. Assuming we can get our telephone equipment fixed by Friday, I'd like to have you on the air so that our listeners can judge for themselves who they believe is on the correct side of this issue. As I frequently say, my show is not a brainwashing-factory, but an ideas exchange.
Secondly, I wanted to clarify my positions based on the conversation we had yesterday. I apologize for cutting our conversation short, but I had a formal to attend and was on my way to pick up my date. Here are my positions. Feel free to share them with your readers. The points are somewhat sporadic, but it is finals time here at the University.
- I believe in freedom in this country. I'm a first amendment guy and the first amendment gives us the right to say anything we want in this country, but also to take responsibility for those things that we say.
- Lydia Cornell wants to be a pundit. She should take responsibility for the opinions she puts out in the public venue.
- You called me saying that you might post my personal cell number on your website, as if that was supposed to change my opinion on freedom.
- That voicemail and the subsequent conversation has not chipped away at my belief in freedom at all, my conviction is only stronger. In fact, I encourage you to do whatever you believe will best illustrate your point of view to your readers.
- I take responsibility for my defense of Ann Coulter's freedom. If you would like to give your listeners an avenue to disagree with me (including listing my telephone, email, or mailing address) that is your prerogative.
- If you believe that posting my contact info will illustrate your point of view, then that is your prerogative.
- I refuse to condemn or condone how Ann Coulter handled the situation with Lydia Cornell. I refuse to get involved in a private dispute between two citizens.
- You asked if posting my mother's information on your website would bother me. Several responses to that. First, I don't see how that would contribute anything to illustrate your point. Second, although I might be bothered by that speech, there is a lot of speech that I don't like (that doesn't mean I would ban it). Thirdly, my mother is an entirely separate party and shouldn't be involved in our dispute at all. Again though, you have the right to do as you wish.
- Ann Coulter should not be blamed for any death threats that Lydia Cornell recieved. This is almost as absurd as blaming Tom Delay for death threats against judges simply because Delay disagrees with elements of the judiciary.
- I wanted to give Lydia Cornell the opportunity to speak her piece on the show, but that didn't make Cornell immune from disagreements or tough questions.
- The constitution of the United States does not include a right to privacy. This was a purposeful omission because it is sometimes necessary to invade one's privacy within the extent of the law.
- Several websites provide 'private cell' information, such as lists of the last 100 people you called for sale. http://www.local6.com/money/5416040/detail.html and http://locatecell.com/
- What Ann Coulter did possibly could have been wrong. I don't analyze personal disputes however. I analyze political issues from a consitutional, political, Catholic, college, and legal perspective.
- I do think it's wrong for Lydia Cornell's publicist to draft press releases personally attacking Jeff Gannon.
- I would hope those on the left would refrain from any personal attacks against me.
- I hope the editors of Brad Blog allow my response to the Lydia Cornell debate to be heard.
- I encourage dialogue on this issue and will be featuring this contreversy on my show this Friday. I hope that you tune in at www.georgetownradio.com from 3-4 PM.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
...
Crackbaby
said on 12/5/2005 @ 8:36 am PT...
Do a search on Josef Goebbles using Google Images. Scroll to a good facial picture of the nazi propaganda minister. Look closely.
Then, go to an image of Ann Coulter. There is a frightening and uncanny resemblance between the two . . . um . . . humans.
Am I nuts or do these two freaks look alike? The stomach-turning skank, Coulter, has sunken, blackened death eyes that look to be mirrors of the beady visual organs of the parasitic sewer slime, Goebbels. The adams apple must not fall far from the tree, so to speak, if you will.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
...
CynAnne
said on 12/5/2005 @ 8:41 am PT...
Re. #19 - Oh , Barry ! Vou and Moi both ! Watching Kinda-Coulter take a cap to the back of her bleached-blonde head , from her own " Can't take this bitter , barren ,*itch NO more ! " boy-toy was PRICELESS ! In fact , I watched several times over the weekend , and it just GETS BETTER every time - well , except for " Kurt " ( Don't tease the dead soldier , Kurt , it could be hazardous to your health ! ) ! ...
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
...
terri
said on 12/5/2005 @ 9:30 am PT...
ummm Anthony?
How about you go ahead and post all YOUR personal information here for us, including your phone number and address. Why wait for Brad to do it?
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
...
Bob Bilse
said on 12/5/2005 @ 9:34 am PT...
I don't see this as a liberal/conservative issue at all.
This woman Ann Coulter has serious mental-emotional issues, and I'm embarrassed for anyone who thinks this woman speaks for them in any way. That's more of a reflection on them then it is on her....and, make no mistake, there are MANY in her "following" who are far worse than she is. That's how she makes money, by appealing to a large group of like-minded people. There's your real problem.
The petulant, despicable, ILLEGAL posting of a person's personal information to get back at them for disagreeing with you is non-support-able by any measure of basic morality, and anybody who defends that, or makes light of it, is a moron - or worse - be they liberal or conservative.
Ann Coulter does not do the strange, nasty, diabolical things she does because she is conservative. She does them because she is emotionally unbalanced.
Any true, self-respecting conservative would put as much distance between themselves and Ann Coulter as they possibly could.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 9:34 am PT...
The truth is Brad threatened me to post my personal contact information because he thought I didn't truly believe in freedom. I am not a hypocrite and told him he could do whatever he pleased and that I stand by the comments I make on the air every week. Since Brad didn't get the result he wanted (which was someone unprincipled who would give in to his silly scare tactics), he (predictably) chose to paraphrase and mischaracterize my position. Typical.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
...
Anthony
said on 12/5/2005 @ 9:43 am PT...
Terri,
I won't post my information because I don't desire it to be distributed. However, because Brad threatened to do so I told him I was fine with it. I'm glad he has chosen not to post the information.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
...
Mel
said on 12/5/2005 @ 9:49 am PT...
Looks like Anthony is taking well to his right wing training. Notice how he lists a bunch of points that individually could be seen as logical but collectively they oppose eachother at times.
For example:
- What Ann Coulter did possibly could have been wrong. I don't analyze personal disputes however. I analyze political issues from a consitutional, political, Catholic, college, and legal perspective.
- I do think it's wrong for Lydia Cornell's publicist to draft press releases personally attacking Jeff Gannon.
yeah, it's OK for you to form an opnion against the opposition when it clearly supports your argument, but you become a limp noodle when it's possibly against a member of your group.
Just like Bush not wanting to do Nation Building and then building a nation in Iraq. or Cheney believing in transparency and then not telling who was involved in his energy meetings. Or Delay being a leader on the Ethics commitee and then being tied to sme of the most corrupt political crimes in recent memory. Or Rush limbaugh calling Jerry Garcia "just another dead doper" all the while abusing drugs himself. Or Rumsfeld saying "we know exactly where they are" in reference to WMDs and then we find out there are none.
I could go on and on but I'm sure Anothny's GOP installed anti-reality filter has probably kicked in by now...
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 9:55 am PT...
- What Ann Coulter did possibly could have been wrong. I don't analyze personal disputes however. I analyze political issues from a consitutional, political, Catholic, college, and legal perspective.
- I do think it's wrong for Lydia Cornell's publicist to draft press releases personally attacking Jeff Gannon.
These statements are distinct. There is a difference between posting an email that was sent unedited by a pundit with no request to keep it private and someone's publicist personally attacking the character of a man who has done nothing to them except defend freedom. I have been consistent in my opposition to personal attacks, but support for speech responsibility.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
...
Robin Ewart
said on 12/5/2005 @ 10:20 am PT...
No one can possibly take Coulter seriously. She is laughing all the way to the bank. Ignore the silly woman and she will go away.
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 12/5/2005 @ 10:45 am PT...
Anthony, #39
Precisely who are you to insist (or 'hope') that Brad post your response on his blog? You are and always have been free to post in the comments section any thoughts you may have, or start your own blog and trackback to this one. What you have been doing thus far is nothing more than false indignation and egotistical grandstanding. I see no evidence that you understand blogs or blogging etiquette.
Anthony, #44
I have never heard of you until now, and saw no reference to you in the original post. Your first comment immediately puts you in the spotlight and not your argument. The self-aggrandizing doesn't stop there as you make unsupported accusations, put up numerous strawmen arguments, and use the same "come on my show or you're a coward, sir" tactics I spoke of earlier. Question: what kind of delusional fantasy world have you spun yourself into?
As always, you are free to voice your opposition to my views.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
...
sukabi
said on 12/5/2005 @ 10:57 am PT...
Free advice for Ms. Cornell.... Get a lawyer, change your number and email account... report the harrassment to the phone company and isp and police - and point them to Coulters webpage that lists your PRIVATE, PERSONAL information and file a stalker/harrassment complaint.
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
...
Robin
said on 12/5/2005 @ 11:31 am PT...
Hi Brad,
Love your website-Actually, on that particular Countdown show, Coulter was named the "Worser" person in the world-not the "Worst". That distinction belonged to someone else.
Just look at the screen grab for verification
Thanks,
Robin
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
...
Henk
said on 12/5/2005 @ 11:50 am PT...
Ann Coulter's proper title is Republican Spokeswoman Ann Coulter or George Bush Supporter Ann Coulter. Tie this wing-nut around thier necks like a goddam Albatross
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 12/5/2005 @ 12:08 pm PT...
- I refuse to condemn or condone how Ann Coulter handled the situation with Lydia Cornell. I refuse to get involved in a private dispute between two citizens.
Uh, it's NOT private.. right? The Haggered Old Witch posted "private" information in a "public space".. Or can't you find a decent way to spin yourself out of that position?
- I believe in freedom in this country. I'm a first amendment guy and the first amendment gives us the right to say anything we want in this country, but also to take responsibility for those things that we say.
and
- Ann Coulter should not be blamed for any death threats that Lydia Cornell recieved. This is almost as absurd as blaming Tom Delay for death threats against judges simply because Delay disagrees with elements of the judiciary.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the illegality of yelling "fire" in a crowded building? See, the -reason- there is a specific law prohibiting such behavior is that there are people in the world ignorant enough not to give one squirt of piss about other people's rights.. and would go so far as to endanger someone's life for entertainment. As to the second bit, it's called "inciting".. that is, if you tell people to do it (and I suppose the definition of "tell" is what would need to be proved beyond a "reasonable doubt") and it happens, you are culpable. Then there's the negligence aspect as well.. If you yell fire in a crowded building and someone gets trampled to death, it's YOUR FAULT it happened.. When someone who's KNOWN for being a hate-monger, like Ann, and has followers who are "reasonably suspected to be as psychotic", puts up someone's "personal information", she becomes both "negligent" and "culpable" for any ill that comes from "her fans" to Lydia.
What's funny is, you are supporting someone (not their right) who calls for the REMOVAL of the 1st Amendment rights for "her opponents". Sure, she has a "right" to say what she likes, but what she's saying is "I don't believe rights apply to everyone", and you seem to think -she- is a spot-on person, right?
I find it amusing how you people say 2 different things in one breath, then get confused when someone points out your broke ass logic.. Well, it would be amusing if you weren't trying to use that fucked up logic to destroy the very thing you claim to value.. Of course, it would seem that you only value it for "you" and "the right people".. Telling, actually..
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 12:32 pm PT...
First of all, as I repeatedly say and you continually ignore - I did not initiate any of this. Brad called my cell phone number and left me a message threatening to post my personal contact information and the contact information of my mother on his blog. I then responded to Brad's voicemail message and let him ask me question after question. He was so shocked that I stood my ground and defended freedom that he couldn't do anything but mischaracterize what I (and other supporters) said in his orignal post. I wasn't going to let him get away with this. Then came the personal attacks and I responded to those. And I don't see anything wrong with asking someone to back up their statements. Brad was obviously listening to my show. This website is one of his primary sources of income. Let him defend what he believes. I don't see anything wrong with that invitation.
Furthermore, this is a private dispute between two citizens. In fact, when I was talking with Brad, he said, "No one is suggesting Coulter did anything illegal, but would you condemn it?" That's when I said I wouldn't get involved in a personal private dispute. I'm sorry, but telephone and email information is not private.
In addition, I do recognize that there are limitations to speech. However, none exist in our code of law currently in this case, which has been one of my points all along.
Lastly, I have heard portions of Coulter's speech. The section you are referencing is out of context and is satirical. Your assault on speech is something less than satire.
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
...
dan7000
said on 12/5/2005 @ 12:49 pm PT...
>>this is a private dispute between two citizens... I'm sorry, but telephone and email information is not private.
So is it private or not? You say it's NOT private, then that it is.
Face it, this is A PUBLIC DISPUTE. Duh.
>>I do recognize that there are limitations to speech. However, none exist in our code of law currently in this case, which has been one of my points all along.
OK, Mr Lawyer, what code of law? (I assume by "code" you mean "statute?" so what statute are you talking about? Are you saying your entire argument is regarding the LEGALITY of Coulter's actions? If so, then you're doing a horrible job since you don't cite any criminal statutes, and in fact, you refuse to respond to the direct citations to California law provided by others on this post.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
...
Stephen
said on 12/5/2005 @ 12:50 pm PT...
Does anybody remember when Dick Durbin got in trouble for comparing the treatment of suspected prisoners at 'Gitmo' to the Nazis? Man he got bashed and butchered for that one.
The story is what, a week old now, where is the outrage, where is the push for an apology? Nobody should be compared to the Nazis (well... unless you are committing mass genocide or something comparable), it is amazing that this story is only floating around the blogosphere and there has been no public outcry. It is almost sad that the members of the 'Right' have had such a penchant for outing people, first Valerie Plames identity, now a witch hunt on Lydia Cornell.
Anthony Bonna is an especially funny individual. Anthony you're pretty clever I'll give you that. I thought the board was about the Coulter story, yet you interjected "brad blah blah blah look at me look at me". Then you continue later with, "let's not focus on me, but on the story, but in the meantime LexisNexis me!", then "why don't you read this online article about me, look at me look at me!." Good self promotion tactic, where you can later say "but look, I said get on topic!", while still self aggrandizing yourself. fun. I haven't kept up with the whole Anthony vs. BradBlog thing, but I did search for your comments in all previous posts about this topic and your comments defending Coulter don't exist. So instead of whining, why don't you defend yourself as to why you are not condemning Coulter? For someone like Coulter who blatantly lies all the time and has some of the worst debate skills I've ever seen, I don't see how so many in America haven't dismissed her from the realm of intelligencia.
I pay my $46k ivy league tuition every year too. What do you want, a goldstar, a cookie?
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
...
Flamethrower
said on 12/5/2005 @ 1:06 pm PT...
...unclesmeldey said on 12/4/2005 @ 5:16pm PT... - write on! But, don't confuse those that gave this bitch far more than her due.
This will make sure you never forget who pulled the fast one: Time magazine.
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 12/5/2005 @ 1:13 pm PT...
Tony can't actually defend his position, so he spins.. that's what Repugs do.
It's a private debate, but posting non-private info (ever hear of unlisted numbers? and how is your "email address" not private? you name isn't tied to it, no one knows it unless you tell them.. duh?) in public space about someone is private.. wait.. in public? Non-public (potentially) info in a public space is now private business? And the threatening calls that are a DIRECT RESULT of Ann's actions, those are nothing to discuss either? What of Ann's HYPOCRACY when she crys because someone posts HER "non-private" info in public?
And, there -are- laws against inciting (which is why I brought it up, duh), and laws against "stalking" and "invading privacy" (much to your chagrin).
Bottom line is, you are trying to use arguments that don't fit the fight to defend someone that doesn't deserve to be defended (if we're talking about defending decent people here.. but, during these troubled times, Rethugs are having to admit more and more that they are NOT decent people, which makes it harder and harder to defend them with any kind of "just principles", donesn't it).
"First of all, as I repeatedly say and you continually ignore - I did not initiate any of this."
As was pointed out, YOU were NOT mentioned in this article. YOU came here and wanted to try and discredit Brad.. He was asking you questions that you seemingly answered with LIES and SPIN.. spin being "my mom has nothing to do with this".. so? it's the PRINCIPLE he was trying to get across, and you answered it in true Repug form.. "don't do it, there's no need".. duh? And it's rude (at best) to publicize someone's info that isn't readily available, and to LEAVE it up after they ask to have it removed. The FACT that you won't "comment on that" is what's telling.. Actually, you DID comment on that when you said "- What Ann Coulter did possibly could have been wrong. I don't analyze personal disputes however. I analyze political issues from a consitutional, political, Catholic, college, and legal perspective." .. So, from a Catholic perspective, is it "ok" that Ann is being mean and spiteful? or is that considered "bad" in the Catholic religion? Oh, wait.. don't answer that.. you will have to -admit- that Ann is a shitbag.. and how can you openly admit that and -still- voice support for her? (here comes the spin, folks!)
Give it up... You say "Ann has this right", then say "Lydia shouldn't say anything about gay-prostitute who likely lied and had illegal access to classified information". Either it's "free speach for all", or "free speach for my friends".. pick one, jackass.. I already know which YOU support.. now admit it.
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
...
des
said on 12/5/2005 @ 1:59 pm PT...
WHOA, Anthony. Brad never 'threatened" to post your personal information --- he asked you, in order to fully understand whether or not you have a double standard as it applies to this issue. I know what Brad said because I was there.
He asked those questions in order to see if you carry the same double standard that many conservatives seem to have in excusing reprehensible behavior from other cons.
Also, he asked you in advance, a courtesy which Coulter, an experienced media hound, did not extend to Cornell.
What Ann Coulter did was wrong. Not against the law, not written into the Constitution. Just wrong. The reasons for that are well known to Coulter, as she has her own stable of stalkers, and in doing so, she has put another person's safety at risk.
Hopefully nothing worse will come of this latest tawdry episode. No one is suggesting that Coulter herself would be responsible for the actions of another. That Coulter put previously private information up for thousands to see, by not extending the same courtesy to others that is extended to her (keeping her private info private as a courtesy), her disregard for another woman's safety is both shameful and dangerous.
It's simple netiquette. Anthony, do you post or otherwise disseminate the private contact info of a person, without asking their permission to be exposed in that manner?
Would you? Why not?
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 12/5/2005 @ 2:08 pm PT...
Savantster, #57
As I said, Anthony came here to self-aggrandize. He has succeeded to some degree to making the controversy about himself --- pretending to be mischaracterized by Brad, playing the victim, and ignoring any contrary opinion. He does everything he can to insert himself personally into the debate, then pleads that the discussion not be about him.
Sounds to me like he just needs to stir up controversy and book people on his show.
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 2:29 pm PT...
>>this is a private dispute between two citizens... I'm sorry, but telephone and email information is not private.>>
Telephone and email information is not private. The dispute between Mrs. Coulter and Mrs. Cornell is private.
This is not about self-aggrandizement. I simply responded to personal attacks and tried to refocus the debate on the issue.
Brad did call with the intent of finding of a double standard and all he could find is consistency.
As for the legal issues I'll quote DES: "What Ann Coulter did was wrong. Not against the law, not written into the Constitution. Just wrong." It's not against the law - that was my only point. I refuse to get involved in a personal dispute.
I actually had three answers to the mom inquiry. They were that it serves no purpose, that bothersome speech should not be banned speech, and that my mother is an entirely separate party. Nonetheless I defended Brad's right to take whatever action he wanted to.
There's a difference between posting information and being mean-spirited.
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
...
23skidoo
said on 12/5/2005 @ 2:52 pm PT...
i'm not aware of the whole brad/anthony brouhaha, but for someone who complains that he's so time-constrained over finals, he certainly finds plenty of time to read and post at this board and who knows how many others.
COMMENT #62 [Permalink]
...
Steve F
said on 12/5/2005 @ 3:26 pm PT...
Anthony, common sense isn't welcomed in these parts.
In the end, Lydia got exactly what she was asking for...ATTENTION.
You think someone like Ann Coulter who is successful who is constantly talked about and put into the spotlight by "bloggers" actually has time when she has MSNBC, CNN, FOXNEWS interviews to give?
She's a busy successful person.
I have a great title for Lydia and Brad's book, however.
"How To Talk to Ann Coulter (If She'd Only Give Us the Time of Day)"
LOL.
COMMENT #63 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 12/5/2005 @ 3:33 pm PT...
Anthony, #60
This is not about self-aggrandizement. I simply responded to personal attacks and tried to refocus the debate on the issue.
This is false. There were no personal attacks against you prior to your first comment. You simply put yourself in the role of the victim:
I am pretty sure I am one of the "fake conservatives who refused to condemn Coulter". Both Brad and I know this is a mischaracterization of my position and what I told him.
The more likely scenario: You don't want to meddle in private affairs or take sides in the debate, but still want to be a part of the controversy (and possibly snag a guest for your talk-radio show). Solution: invent a reason for getting involved. Claim that the Big Bad Brad Blog Editors are attacking you personally. Insist (or 'hope') that he reprint your talking points on his blog (disregarding the comment section available to all). Provoke him to appear on your show. Mission accomplished. All of this, without a single mention of you on this blog beforehand.
Time for some disclosure: did Brad contact you prior to this comment, and prior to his original post, specifically targeting you as the one who refuses to condemn Coulter? Brad commonly talks about "fake conservatives" as a general group, in the same vain as the "6 or 7". I've never seen you on this site, and it appears very few others have heard of you. Your credibility is already dropping.
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
...
Jonathon
said on 12/5/2005 @ 3:50 pm PT...
come on, give Anthony a break. Libs need to stop attacking him personally and let him get his points across.
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/5/2005 @ 3:54 pm PT...
COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
...
des
said on 12/5/2005 @ 4:06 pm PT...
Anthony, in your #60 post, you apparently agree with me:
"There's a difference between posting information and being mean-spirited."
Exactly!
What Ann Coulter did in posting contact information and the contents of a private email without permission from the sender was mean-spirited, and possibly dangerous (and I'm sure you join me in hoping that it doesn't come to that). Nobody but you has mentioned anything about "banning bothersome speech".
Yeah, we got it that your main point is only regarding the legality of it. What I'm trying to understand, since you came on this board to discuss this subject, is where this falls on your own moral and ethical scale?
If you are not comfortable expressing an opinion about Coutler's blatant disregard for netiquette and another's personal safety, that is your right, of course. It is my understanding that you had no difficulty expressing an opinion on this incident on your radio show; if that is so, it is curious that you do not wish to express an opinion on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of this incident now.
It's really quite simple. Do you think Coulter's actions were right or wrong? Would you do the same?
As I asked in a previous post, would you do as Coulter has done, and post the contact information of another citizen without their permission? Why, or why not? I suspect that you would not because you seem like a decent person who wishes to follow a code of ethics.
Heck, I don't even pass on contact info to friends and acquaintances without asking their permission first.
COMMENT #67 [Permalink]
...
Darrin Siegfried
said on 12/5/2005 @ 4:07 pm PT...
in re: Maybe "peace" was the wrong word to use. Liberals are obsessed with "surrender" and that rarely leads to peace.
Let's see: Roosevelt never surrendered, nor did Churchill. Both "Liberals".
Nixon's Viet Nam exit strategy was a certain surrender, as was Reagan's running away from Beirut after 234 Marines were murdered.
Gore & Kerre both volunteered for service in Viet Nam, while George the Lesser went AWOL.
So, WTF do you base your "Liberals are obsessed with "surrender"" on... Rush Limbaugh's drug-addled rantings?
Liberals have given us:
the concept of voting for our government,
racial equality,
women's rights,
religious freedom and equality,
the Declaration of Independence,
the Bill of Rights.
The right wing has fought each and every one of these, and given us nothing but greed, angry white males,envy, avarice, needless wars. Doesn't sound much like the teachings of Jesus, does it?
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
...
MMIIXX
said on 12/5/2005 @ 4:07 pm PT...
Anthony ,I'm not American and have never seen you post any comments on this blog and other than this "thread" have not read any of your "thoughts" regarding the appalling state of affairs that your country has gotten itself into since the perverted elections in 2000.An election that has since been proven to have "handed" the victory to the wrong candidate .I also note the levels of corruption that occurred during the 2004 election which yet again have been show to have awarded the results to the wrong candidate ,on this statement I would remind you of the elections in the Ukraine with regards to exit polls being a "benchmark" used to detect electral fraud.
Therefore can you comment on these unbelieveable election results so I have some understanding of your motivation and eliminate it as being purely "self-aggrandizing".
P.S. I'm all in favour of youth becoming involved in politics and encourage all my kids to "be aware" of who is deciding the environment of their futures.
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
...
Darrin Siegfried
said on 12/5/2005 @ 4:11 pm PT...
While I'm at it...
Can any of the alleged "conservatives" out there tell me either one thing (factual, not conceptual) that's better now because of George the Lesser or, failing that, one instance where our "Christian" President has actually acted in a Christian manner?
Take your time, now.
COMMENT #70 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 12/5/2005 @ 4:24 pm PT...
Anthony said (in itals):
Brad called my cell phone number and left me a message threatening to post my personal contact information and the contact information of my mother on his blog.
That is a lie, Anthony.
I then responded to Brad's voicemail message and let him ask me question after question. He was so shocked that I stood my ground and defended freedom that he couldn't do anything but mischaracterize what I (and other supporters) said in his orignal post.
That is another lie, Anthony. Your wingnut training has been very succesful so far! Congratulations!
Though you flatter yourself, I never discussed you on this blog until you yourself showed up here and posted about yourself in Comments.
Finally, if posting your Mother's phone number is wrong because she has nothing to do with anything, why is it not equally wrong to post the phone number of Lydia's children and husband?
Do you know that they have been visited at their own home thanks to your hero, Coulter?
Grow up, Anthony. And along the way, pleas try to both find a concscience and learn to tell the truth.
COMMENT #71 [Permalink]
...
Farky Tahesh
said on 12/5/2005 @ 4:33 pm PT...
The simple truth is that what Ann Coulter did is indefensible. Who cares if it's legal? It was an uncaring, thoughtless, and cruel thing to do to anyone.
Anthony, there are certainly people in this world I dislike. However, I would not condone such an action against even the lowest person on that list.
The fact that you would even partially condone or defend Ann Coulter, who has proven herself time and again to be without shame or remorse, combined with the haughtiness of your posts in general, led to my criticism of you.
I stand by my words. Talk to me in ten years when you've been in the real world and even have kids of your own. I promise you your perspectives will change. I was in college myself (shortly after the advent of indoor plumbing), and frankly I'm amazed at how naive I was in retrospect. You'll see what I mean.
On one point, however, I will agree with you: Posts that consist largely of "F**K that p***y" or the like contribute nothing except an appreciation of the emotional and intellectual capacity of the writer. Having to sift through that stuff on EVERY SINGLE BLOG IN EXISTENCE makes me wish I could just pull the plug on the whole darn Internet sometimes.
"WE MUST HAVE REASONABLE DISCOURSE!" - Sen. S.I. Hayakawa, when Presidento of SF State in 1969 (during "the troubles")
Farky Tahesh
aspiring citizen of the world
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
...
MMIIXX
said on 12/5/2005 @ 4:44 pm PT...
Farky ,"thoughtless" is the all I disagree with in your post.
mick
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
...
Susan Elizabeth
said on 12/5/2005 @ 5:03 pm PT...
Why doesn't Lydia go on main stream media and tell her side of the story ?!
Go on CNN or MSNBC since mAnn Coulter is not welcomed on those two stations ( according to mAnn Coulter )
Ask it what gender it is . Tell mAnn Coulter Liberals question the adams apple !
mAnn Coulter whines , bltches and moans and the Bush media lets her 24/7 !
If I got a shot to ask the bltch a question ! I'd ask her/him about it's gender ~
I'm serious !!
COMMENT #74 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 5:35 pm PT...
Brad, you accuse me of lying but I have your message recorded and saved. You did threaten to put my number on the website and said if I didn't respond to you, you would assume it's okay. Then when I responded you asked question after question looking for inconsistencies and could find none. He was hoping that I - to quote Des - [had] a double standard as it applies to this issue. I did not. When we left the conversation he said he "had not decided whether or not he was going to post my number."
And then Brad, you accuse me of lying and not having a concious. That is hurtful and personal, but we both know it is untrue.
My simple thing is this: I may not like your speech, but I will defend it to the death. Ann Coulter chose to handle a situation a certain way. Certain people may have had reprehensible reactions to Ann Coulter's actions. However, Ann never intended harm against Mrs. Cornell.
Lydia is a very sweet woman. I enjoyed talking with her and thank her for trying to come on my show. She is doing what she thinks is necessary and she is doing it the right way - combatting speech with speech of her own. She's entered the public realm and I congratulate her on it and wish her well.
I never said posting my mother's phone number was wrong. I reserved judgement and said you could do whatever you want. I only said I could see no purpose for such action.
Brad, you know you were the first person to contact me. Phone records can prove that. Your post mischaracterized the positions of Ann Coulter's defenders... it seems you liken Ann's defenders of her freedom to defending her actions. These are entirely two different things and you know that.
My first post simply said I had responded to Brad and I hoped he would share that with his readers. Then came the personal attacks which now Brad himself is throwing out there.
COMMENT #75 [Permalink]
...
Anthony
said on 12/5/2005 @ 5:49 pm PT...
#63 - Brad did contact me before any of this as I have been saying all along. And his post was after our conversation. Maybe I should have been more clear.
COMMENT #76 [Permalink]
...
MMIIXX
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:06 pm PT...
...Anthony Bonna got a transcript of the phone call ?
COMMENT #77 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:08 pm PT...
I do have the voice message recorded. I have not transcribed the message as of yet, but will do so in a timely manner. Unfortunately, I did not transcribe the return call I made to Brad, but I can supply the records that show Brad called me and then I responded to him.
COMMENT #78 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:23 pm PT...
Brad's Message
Recieved Friday December 2nd 3:22 PM
Hi Anthony this is Brad Friedman and I am from the Bradblog.com where Lydia Cornell posted her original article about Ann Coulter and so forth and I was just listening to you online and I know you had problems getting Lydia. Thanks for having her on to talk about this. However, you seemed to indicate that you had no problem with Ann coulter posting her phone number on her website. And you know, she gets millions and millions of readers. I'm wondering if it would be okay then if I posted your cell phone on my website. Please let me know. My phone number is [number omitted]. I would appreciate if you did not post my private phone number. But let me know if its okay. And I guess either way you're saying its okay if I post your cell number on my website. Let me know if I'm wrong about that. Thanks a bunch, Anthony.
COMMENT #79 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:36 pm PT...
Anthony, #74
You're slipping: Now you are saying Brad "mischaracterized the positions of Ann Coulter's defenders", whereas before you were posturing yourself as some sort of lightning rod for personal attacks. So which is it, was he smearing you, or making a general comment about so-called conservatives?
Likely: You took what was an incidental comment about the general silence of so-called conservatives and mischaracterized it as directed at you: "Both Brad and I know this is a mischaracterization of my position and what I told him."
"it seems you liken Ann's defenders of her freedom to defending her actions"
False: Brad was not railing against free speech, but the "indefensable lapse of simple 'netiquette' and common decency". The argument you put forth is based on distortion and obscurity.
re #78,
It is evident that you were contacted before the post on background, but not that you were the subject of the original post. Your wording is changing accordingly.
Blanket statements about so-called conservatives and their silence on certain issues is a theme around here, and you fall somewhere within that diverse category. You were never mentioned until you singled yourself out. The rest is, as Brad says, you flattering yourself or, as I say, self-aggrandizing.
If that transcribed message is what constitutes the 'threat' you described, you are missing the point.
Good luck with your talk-radio program.
COMMENT #80 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 6:46 pm PT...
Umm... I have always said that Brad mischaracterized my positions and the positions of conservatives defending Coulter. Wheter you're saying the statement toward me alone or an entire group, it is still mischaracterizing my position if I share the position with the group.
I have also said that there are those on this blog who have shamefully chosen to attack me personally. They call me rich when I am not. They attack my involvement in the community. They call me stupid. They use profanities. When Brad called me a liar, he then sunk to that level.
I don't see how this constitutes "slipping".
Brad and others have chosen to take sides in a personal matter between two private citizens. I refuse to do this. For example, just because Jane hits Sally... it doesn't necessarily mean Jane is wrong. Sally could have been strangling Jane and Jane had to resort to hitting to save herself. I'm sorry that I don't run my mouth without knowing all of the context of the situation.
The transcribed message coupled with the subsequent call (which I wish I transcribed) does constitute a threat to put the number on his website.
COMMENT #81 [Permalink]
...
Steve F
said on 12/5/2005 @ 7:01 pm PT...
Anthony, you better be careful or your posts will be censored.
These people - Lydia incuded speak about "truth" and what's right or wrong and duck away when these issues are waved at them.
Ironically, a good portion of Lydia's original post attacked Stafford Jones, to which she recently (on her own blog) admitted she was wrong about. She first gave the impression that The Republican Party earned $20,000 but paid Ann $30,000. To which he corrected her on. They MADE $20,000 after all expenses including Ann's fee.
While it's nice and noble of Lydia to now acknowledge this to him - for a while - his life was greatly affected by this. It's also indicative of her fact-checking efforts before she writes and publishes articles.
It certainly isn't going to help the book they are attempting. Even Al Franken's fact checkers have proven to be more reliable (and we both know how reliable those were).
I think liberals like this were expecting Ann to react in defense. Go on the air, talk about it, create hype to gain an interest. When Ann instead brushed it off, and posted the email and interjected humor to it ("I didn't even tell her about the prison camps I have planned for Democrats and now suddenly this:"), it showed liberals that Ann really was disinterested and at the most is thankful for them creating this utter interest in her. They're obsessed with her (go to mediamatters.org and type in Ann Coulter - not even George Bush gets as big of reaction).
I'm telling you, Lydia should have thought before she did...her email to Ann was not at all indicative of what her final piece was going to consist of. It was sneaky and it was wrong. She started a fire, and Ann put it out without wasting half the energy that these liberals are.
The whole thing worked out in Ann's favor, and worked against Lydia.
Now that this has happened, liberals are crying like they always do trying to accuse Ann Coulter of attacking when indeed, it was Lydia who attacked first.
COMMENT #82 [Permalink]
...
MMIIXX
said on 12/5/2005 @ 8:10 pm PT...
Anthony
So Brad offered an example , "I'm wondering if it would be okay then if I posted your cell phone on my website." ,it would be a embelishment to call it "a threat".
As in Iraq was a threat to America but I suppose you don't want to wait for a "mushroom cloud".Do you talk about truth on your radio program?
Please see my post #68
COMMENT #83 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 8:17 pm PT...
MMIIXX,
As I have stated all along, what constitutes the threat is the voice message transcribed coupled with the subsequent conversation.
COMMENT #84 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/5/2005 @ 8:45 pm PT...
This new McCarthy-esque liberalism is frightening (except McCarthy actually didn't do what the left attributes to him). They convict Tom Delay before he's had his day in court. They convict Bill Frist because of a routine investigation. They convict Scooter Libby before his day in court. They convict Karl Rove even though he hasn't been indicted. They accuse the Commander-in-Chief of openly lying and using American lives for political gain. They accuse Ann Coulter and Tom Delay of inciting death threats against liberals. They smear Jeff Gannon by writing nasty press releases. They smear me as "rich kid who's been spoonfed by his mommy" and a "fascist imperialist chickenhawk". The owner of this blog calls me a liar even though everything I've said on this blog is truth. The left is lately in love with unsubstantiated claims. This is something I'm not willing to do - make claims that are unsubstantiated. I refuse to publicly comment on a private dispute between to citizens because that is not my place. If you want to have a debating society about personal problems, then maybe you should go to an AA meeting.
COMMENT #85 [Permalink]
...
MMIIXX
said on 12/5/2005 @ 10:50 pm PT...
Anthony if the left are into "unsubstantiated claims" explain why it is that this administration has spend more money than any previous administration on covering up government "dealing" by way of "national security" etc. and don't blame it on 911 .We all have seen how unprepared your country is with regard to "natural disasters" or another terrorist attack.This administration is doing a "heck of a job" ,yea right .
COMMENT #86 [Permalink]
...
Stephen
said on 12/6/2005 @ 4:23 am PT...
Anthony. I feel bad for the Republicans who donated money for your education. First of all, read your on transciption of the conversation.
"I was wondering if it would be okay then if I posted your cell phone on my website. Please let me know. My phone number is [number omitted]. I would appreciate if you did not post my private phone number. But let me know if its okay. And I guess either way you're saying its okay if I post your cell number on my website. Let me know if I'm wrong about that. Thanks a bunch, Anthony."
He is not saying nor did he say that he was going to post your number on the internet. He also did not threaten you. He simply made the comparison that if you believe it is ok for Coulter to post personal contact information online, then he is assuming that it would, hypothetically be ok for him to post yours (you haven't had a torrent of people calling you and abusing your phone and your residence so I think it's very difficult to gauge your own presonal response). Learn how to read.
It is funny to me at least, that you come on this blog and defend yourself against personal attacks, but you refuse to answer peoples' questions about how you personally feel about, your moral and ethical stance. Surely you must have one, if you didn't, you wouldn't get flustered about people bad mouthing you, because it is legal and doesn't fall into one of your pre-listed x,y,z perspectives you speak from.
Goto Coulter's website, on the far right there is a message board-esque thing.
"DEAR MR. RICE: I INTEND TO WRITE TO EVERY KNOWN VETERAN IN YOUR HOMETOWN AND URGE THEM TO BEAT YOU UP"
funny. ann lives in NYC right?
NYC hate crime act 200. Chpt. 107
inciting people to cause harm to Mr. Rice. That's inciting and against the law according the hate crime act. Mr. Rice should sue her ass.
As for that little tidbit about Mccarthy, did you read that straight out of "ann coulter-treason"? Sure. There are a lot of mishandlings of Mccarthy, he should not be applauded though. Mccarthy became so obsessed with uprooting the communists conspirators that he believed were in the army, gov't, media, etc. that he went after a lot of people. The facts are he was relentless in his pursuit, but he had little to no evidence. The fact is that he is lucky that his suspicions were true, his methods were abhorrent and it was obvious to everyone, Eisenhower didn't like it, and his baseless pursuit into the Army led to his fall from grace.
READ HISTORY, NOT PUNDITS.
COMMENT #87 [Permalink]
...
Mike
said on 12/6/2005 @ 7:31 am PT...
I think this is Ann Coulter's info:
2829 CONNECTICUT AVE NW
WASHINGTON, DC (202) 462-0750 or (202) 328-8773
COMMENT #88 [Permalink]
...
Jonathon
said on 12/6/2005 @ 7:37 am PT...
lets debate the issues.... lets stop the personal attacks on both sides....
COMMENT #89 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/6/2005 @ 8:29 am PT...
Stephen - I'm going to say this for the third time, I believe! Hopefully this will make it obvious - the threat to put the number on the website came during my actual phone conversation with Brad. Even though it was nasty advice, Polonius should heed his own suggestion.
As for the liberal unsubstantiated claims... that was my point. My point had nothing to do with McCarthy, except for one small anecdote. My point had more to do with McCarthy in the sense of how the word is used today - McCarthyism... relentlessly attacking political opponents without evidence or fact.
I also love how you began your very 'eloquent' response with yet another personal attack. I attack ideas and misinformation, seems all you can do is attack me.
COMMENT #90 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/6/2005 @ 8:40 am PT...
The advice I was referring to was to 'learn to read'.
COMMENT #91 [Permalink]
...
Mel
said on 12/6/2005 @ 9:32 am PT...
Anthony, You have mentioned that Brad has 'threatened' to release your personal info.
Threat implies the possibility of harm.
Therefore posting personal info, if used as a threat can cause harm.
If it causes harm, why is it not wrong when Ann Coulter does it?
Also...
You seem very concerned about political attacks except when it's Ann Coulter (or possibly other GOP robots) doing the accusing.
We all know how Ann Coulter has used any opposition to the neocon line to question patriocy and accuse others of treason. She has a reputation as being mean and incideniary against liberals. Therefore her actions must always be looked at in that regard first.
I don't blame you for choosing the path you have. After all there are great monetary benefits to supporting the GOP. They'll put you through school because you're one of them. You're an investment in their cause and we'll they just too much money anyway. Of course you'll have any sense of shame or humility banished from your soul but hey, at least you'll be able to look down on those crazy liberals, poor and sick people without a feeling tinge of responsibility to help the human cause.
Because you know looking at the world and trying to solve it's problems is just so difficult... better to just take care of one's self and drown out the noise of reality with a nice neocon mantra instead.
COMMENT #92 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/6/2005 @ 9:40 am PT...
To Threaten does not inherently imply harm. To threaten simply means to state the possibility you might do something. Which Brad did. While many threats are made maliciously, others are simply warnings.
If your personal attacks were in the form of clever satire and actually contributed to your argument, they might be excused. I congratulate you again for displaying your ability to be nasty. I think fairminded people can see what's right here.
COMMENT #93 [Permalink]
...
Mel
said on 12/6/2005 @ 10:13 am PT...
Thanks for your congratulations. It's too bad you think that such a mild attack under guise of satire is nasty. Of course I intend to give you what you wanted. What all neocons want... The ability to feel attacked so they can justify their extreme views and actions.
Everything the mainstream right does these days is built upon an "attack or be attacked" mind state. Any opposition is not just a differing opinion is it?
Ohhh it's a nasty liberal attacking me.
It's those damn muslims attacking our way of life.
It's those damn democrat war heros who must be questioned about THEIR loyalty because they questioned our 5 deferrments or failure to serve in the miltary. So what if he lost two limbs! I need proof he deserved two purple hearts!
For all their talk of "tree hugging, bleeding heart liberals", neocons sure have a difficult time taking criticisms and honestly looking at themselves. I guess if they did that then they would realize they might not really be fair-minded though.
As usual, you offer no counter argument except to say what a nasty meanie people can be - but whats funny is how only liberals seem to be that to you.
I'd like to hear who in the neocon camp you feel is a nasty person. Ann Coulter?
And you're correct that fair-minded people can see what's right. I count on that.
COMMENT #94 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/6/2005 @ 10:29 am PT...
Only a sample of the hatred on this blog...
"Of course you'll have any sense of shame or humility banished from your soul" Mel post 91
"I feel bad for the Republicans who donated money for your education." Stephen post 86
"Grow up, Anthony. And along the way, pleas try to both find a concscience and learn to tell the truth. " Brad post 70
-Being called a liar in post 70 twice
"I pay my $46k ivy league tuition every year too. What do you want, a goldstar, a cookie? " Stephen bring up my college situation for no apparent reason
"A.Bonna...just another warmongering coward of the right. Wassamatta chickenhawk, lose your balls somewhere? Ever have any? If you DID have any you would quit school and join the big green machine and do your best to help the Coward in Chief's war on whatever. But NOOOOOO, you're just another pudgy faced little right wing neoconazi wannabe...ain'tcha. " comment 20
Poor, misunderstood Anthony. So sorry if Brad is not treating you in the silver-spoon, "mommy-buy-that-for-me" way to which you are obviously accustomed...I mean, how else does one account for an (alleged) Georgetown student writing "say his peace"? Clearly you are not there based on your SAT scores.
Illiteracy is the new black, it would seem.
Comment 7
COMMENT #95 [Permalink]
...
Stephen
said on 12/6/2005 @ 12:16 pm PT...
Anthony,
you play the victim very well.
I bring up your education because you had been doing so at every opportunity before that. "ive had hard times this, don't hate me because i'm living the american dream that, read this article about people giving me money, blah blah blah". For the amount that you aggrandize yourself, you really shouldn't just call it defending yourself, I think you rather enjoy it, you get to toss out email links that you have ready at your finger tips.
In your response to my post, you said you were hoping that it would clear it up, clear up the threat from the phone coversation. You keep saying it came from the phone conversation. I know that. You posted a transcription of the conversation. I quoted that. It has no threat in it as I described to you, although you didn't respond to any of that, you simply continue to play the victim and continue as if I was talking about something completely different.
You're like a magician.
Anthony - "he threatened to post my information on the internet"
Other people - "give us a phone transcription"
Anthony - "ok here it is"
Stephen - "there is no threat in that conversation, just you misinterpreting it".
Anthony - "let me clear it up, it's in the PHONE CONVERSATION".
Stephen - "...."
Learn to read and respond to the context of the argument, not one that you fabricated in your head.
COMMENT #96 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/6/2005 @ 12:27 pm PT...
Fourth try here, Stephen...
What you quoted is the voice message that Brad left me and I transcribed. I did not transcribe the "subsequent" phone conversation with Brad because I don't have it recorded. Again "the threat to put the number on the website came during my actual phone conversation with Brad." The threat did not come in the voice message, understand? Lol, the reason I 'continued on as if you were talking about something completely different' was because, well, simply, you were 'talking about something completely different.
Secondly, the only reason I brought up that news article was in defense. One of your bloggers attacked me as a spoon-fed rich kid and I wanted to make it clear that wasn't the case. Again you have chosen to make this a debate about me to ignore the facts. How about we not mention Anthony in the next post and actually talk about the issue, eh?
COMMENT #97 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/6/2005 @ 12:31 pm PT...
"The transcribed message, COUPLED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT CALL, (which I wish I transcribed) does constitute a threat to put the number on his website." Post 80
"As I have stated all along, what constitutes the threat is the voice message transcribed coupled with the subsequent conversation." Post 83
"I'm going to say this for the third time, I believe! Hopefully this will make it obvious - the threat to put the number on the website came during my actual phone conversation with Brad." Post 89
"What you quoted is the voice message that Brad left me and I transcribed. I did not transcribe the "subsequent" phone conversation with Brad because I don't have it recorded. Again "the threat to put the number on the website came during my actual phone conversation with Brad." The threat did not come in the voice message, understand? Lol, the reason I 'continued on as if you were talking about something completely different' was because, well, simply, you were 'talking about something completely different." Post 96
Please tell me you get the point, now?
COMMENT #98 [Permalink]
...
Colin
said on 12/6/2005 @ 12:37 pm PT...
If someone like Ann Coulter can use spiteful words and go as low as posting Lydia Cornell's personal information on her website, it would seem legitimate to do the same to her. Although, it would hardly suffice to any one person's satisfaction. Fortunately, we can leave it up to the media to expose such an ill-willed person, which by coincidence, has just done that. Thank-you MSNBC.
Unfortunately, free speech protects each and every citizen's right to speak as they wish, even someone like Ann Coulter, who uses free speech to call for the "killing of all liberals." If words and speech are the only defense we have, then why don't we spell out the facts.
"In the portrayal of red states and blue states in the last Presidential election, blue states reflected states where education was a higher standard, than educational standards reflected in the red states, which was significantly lower. Take for an example; in the 2005 presidential election, John Kerry lead in 9 out of the top 10 smartest states in the United States.
Furthermore, in larger cities in even the Red States, 60% or more voted for a Democratic President. Statistically, larger cities consist of a higher ratio of College-educated individuals."
Color me Blue!
COMMENT #99 [Permalink]
...
Colin
said on 12/6/2005 @ 12:38 pm PT...
If someone like Ann Coulter can use spiteful words and go as low as posting Lydia Cornell's personal information on her website, it would seem legitimate to do the same to her. Although, it would hardly suffice to any one person's satisfaction. Fortunately, we can leave it up to the media to expose such an ill-willed person, which by coincidence, has just done that. Thank-you MSNBC.
Unfortunately, free speech protects each and every citizen's right to speak as they wish, even someone like Ann Coulter, who uses free speech to call for the "killing of all liberals." If words and speech are the only defense we have, then why don't we spell out the facts.
"In the portrayal of red states and blue states in the last Presidential election, blue states reflected states where education was a higher standard, than educational standards reflected in the red states, which was significantly lower. Take for an example; in the 2005 presidential election, John Kerry lead in 9 out of the top 10 smartest states in the United States.
Furthermore, in larger cities in even the Red States, 60% or more voted for a Democratic President. Statistically, larger cities consist of a higher ratio of College-educated individuals."
Color me Blue!
COMMENT #100 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/6/2005 @ 12:54 pm PT...
Will be interested to see if we hear from "Stephen Wang" again....
COMMENT #101 [Permalink]
...
MMIIXX
said on 12/6/2005 @ 3:48 pm PT...
this tread was "MSNBC Names Ann Coulter 'World's Worst' for Posting BRAD BLOGGER's Private Information" not the semantics of the word "threat".
threat
COMMENT #102 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/6/2005 @ 4:45 pm PT...
Yes agreed and I've laid down a series of arguments that no one has yet to refute. Stephen tried to get me with an inconsistency and apparently was WRONG, so now you're trying to pretend that I've evaded the issue.
COMMENT #103 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/6/2005 @ 6:59 pm PT...
Anthony, let's put it this way --- if people on this thread were calling out for you to be beaten with a baseball bat, I might agree with you that you're being attacked. However, that's not the case. You're much too sensitive to be providing any support for Ann Coulter considering the endless stream of offensive rubbish she churns out year after year.
Anthony says: “My simple thing is this: I may not like your speech, but I will defend it to the death. Ann Coulter chose to handle a situation a certain way. Certain people may have had reprehensible reactions to Ann Coulter's actions.” – Anthony, please. What do you mean “reprehensible reactions” to Coulter’s actions? It’s more appropriate to say “**reactions to Coulter’s reprehensible actions.**”
And (to the last part of your comment) “However, Ann never intended harm against Mrs. Cornell,” how do you KNOW what intentions Ann Coulter had in posting Lydia Cornell’s personal information?
I (just like Des) never give out anyone’s personal information --even to friends and family --- without asking permission first. Surely you agree that is the preferred method by those of us who live by an honorable code of decency and integrity. Coulter, however, seems to be fairly deficient in both of those areas.
Since the posting of Lydia Cornell's personal phone number without taking steps beforehand to gain permission, Ann Coulter has acted out one of her malevolent calls to injure **non-Republicans**.
See below for a refresher course on some of the reprehensible malice, ill will and malevolence of Ann Coulter:
10/6/04 --- [LINDA VESTER (host):] You say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all? [Ann COULTER:] I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. [FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester]
And the extremist Coulter keeps pounding away with that line [Interview by Carlos Baroni, Oriana d'America, Italy, October 2004]:
Question: Your last book is called "How to Talk to a Liberal." With which words? Answer [Ann Coulter]: A baseball bat is best."
**More inflamatory utterances from the putrescent mouth of Coulter**:
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." --- Ann Coulter to George Gurley, New York Observer, August 21, 2002
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty.We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors." --- Ann Coulter, Conservative Political Action Convention, February 2002
"...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start." --- Ann Coulter, Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it! It's yours.'" --- Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes,June 20, 2001
"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals." --- Ann Coulter, Washington Post, August 1, 2000
"[The] backbone of the Democratic Party [is a] typical fat, implacable welfare recipient" --- Ann Coulter, syndicated column, October 29, 1999
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." --- Ann Coulter, George, July 1999
"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks." --- Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, August 2, 1999"
"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married." --- Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, June 7, 2000 (This one just gives a clue about Coulter’s own sex habits.)
On Rep. Christopher Shays (D-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain." --- Ann Coulter, Hartford Courant, June 25, 1999
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war." --- Ann Coulter, MSNBC
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." --- Ann Coulter, George, July 1999
"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism." --- Ann Coulter, MSNBC, February 8, 1997
"Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - Ann Coulter, from: How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004
**And, is Ann Coulter a woman? Or not ... ?? These are odd quotes for an educated woman to make...**
"Conservatives have a problem with women. For that matter, all men do." --- Ann Coulter, Cornell Review, 1984, reported in Time, April 2005.
"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting --- and your Communists will back me up on this --- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
-- Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001
"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."
-- Ann Coulter, Salon.com, November 16, 2000
"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." - Ann Coulter, May 17, 2003.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's take a look at Ann Coulter’s Brazen Attack on Former Sen. Max Cleland (one of our American War Heroes):
Coulter, in a column published this week, said that Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, is no war hero, but rather a victim of a tragic, accidental grenade explosion who plays up his amputations for political gain.
“If Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. Senator in the first place. Maybe he’d be the best pharmacist in Atlanta,” Coulter said in her column, published on February 11.
“He didn’t ‘give his limbs for his country,’ or leave them ‘on the battlefield,” Coulter said. “There was no bravery involved in dropping the grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight.
In fact, Cleland was wounded picking up a grenade that someone else dropped, during what he says was a combat mission.
... **Rusty Paul, a Georgian Republican Party strategist, said Coulter crossed the line with her comments**. [snip]
It's nice to see a Republican strong enough to take a stand against Coulter's slander. It would be refreshing to see the majority of the Republican Party stand up against this virulent hate speech against non-Republicans which was engineered and catapulted - beginning sometime during the 1980s.
PS - I see Steve Flesher is back. He sits squarely in the middle of Ann Coulter's camp and should garner just as much respect.
COMMENT #104 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/6/2005 @ 7:12 pm PT...
PS Anthony - just what is your "series of arguments" not yet refuted?
I think folks have done a pretty good job showing your misconceptions and misdirections.
Quickly enumerate them for us so we can take care of that problem (again if necessary.)
Thanks!
COMMENT #105 [Permalink]
...
Anthony
said on 12/6/2005 @ 7:40 pm PT...
What I meant was that some psychos may have interpreted Ann Coulter's ideas wrongly and committed reprehensible actions.
Here are my arguments...
- I believe in freedom in this country. I'm a first amendment guy and the first amendment gives us the right to say anything we want in this country, but also to take responsibility for those things that we say.
- Lydia Cornell wants to be a pundit. She should take responsibility for the opinions she puts out in the public venue.
- You called me saying that you might post my personal cell number on your website, as if that was supposed to change my opinion on freedom.
- That voicemail and the subsequent conversation has not chipped away at my belief in freedom at all, my conviction is only stronger. In fact, I encourage you to do whatever you believe will best illustrate your point of view to your readers.
- I take responsibility for my defense of Ann Coulter's freedom. If you would like to give your listeners an avenue to disagree with me (including listing my telephone, email, or mailing address) that is your prerogative.
- If you believe that posting my contact info will illustrate your point of view, then that is your prerogative.
- I refuse to condemn or condone how Ann Coulter handled the situation with Lydia Cornell. I refuse to get involved in a private dispute between two citizens.
- You asked if posting my mother's information on your website would bother me. Several responses to that. First, I don't see how that would contribute anything to illustrate your point. Second, although I might be bothered by that speech, there is a lot of speech that I don't like (that doesn't mean I would ban it). Thirdly, my mother is an entirely separate party and shouldn't be involved in our dispute at all. Again though, you have the right to do as you wish.
- Ann Coulter should not be blamed for any death threats that Lydia Cornell recieved. This is almost as absurd as blaming Tom Delay for death threats against judges simply because Delay disagrees with elements of the judiciary.
- I wanted to give Lydia Cornell the opportunity to speak her piece on the show, but that didn't make Cornell immune from disagreements or tough questions.
- The constitution of the United States does not include a right to privacy. This was a purposeful omission because it is sometimes necessary to invade one's privacy within the extent of the law.
- Several websites provide 'private cell' information, such as lists of the last 100 people you called for sale. http://www.local6.com/money/5416040/detail.html and http://locatecell.com/
- What Ann Coulter did possibly could have been wrong. I don't analyze personal disputes however. I analyze political issues from a consitutional, political, Catholic, college, and legal perspective.
- I do think it's wrong for Lydia Cornell's publicist to draft press releases personally attacking Jeff Gannon.
- I would hope those on the left would refrain from any personal attacks against me.
- I hope the editors of Brad Blog allow my response to the Lydia Cornell debate to be heard.
- I encourage dialogue on this issue and will be featuring this contreversy on my show this Friday. I hope that you tune in at www.georgetownradio.com from 3-4 PM.
Theres a difference between personal attacks and harsh public satire...
To my knowledge no one has successfully refuted my points or proven inconsistencies.
When they can't come up with inconsistencies (because there are none) people like Stephen create them even though I clearly explained myself five times.
Your Coulter quotes prove nothing out of context.
COMMENT #106 [Permalink]
...
Anthony
said on 12/6/2005 @ 8:18 pm PT...
All this while Ann is named the top woman in the conservative movement!
Ranked by the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute. To purchase the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute's 2006 Great American Conservative Women Calendar. Order today and guarantee delivery by Christmas.
Top 10 Women in Conservative Movement
Posted Dec 6, 2005
1. Ann Coulter
The author of four New York Times best-selling books, a television and radio commentator, attorney, Human Events legal affairs correspondent, nationally syndicated columnist, and the most popular campus speaker in the country.
COMMENT #107 [Permalink]
...
BradF
said on 12/6/2005 @ 8:44 pm PT...
I'm sure the "Conservative Movement" couldn't be prouder.
COMMENT #108 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/6/2005 @ 9:56 pm PT...
(Adding to BradF #107) ... However it doesn't say much for the decency or integrity of the "Conservative Movement" in my opinion.
The Coulter quotes prove everything I've said. She's mean spirited and factually challenged.
PS Anthony - you don't need to cut and paste your previous comments --- just refer to them by their number (#). Thanks.
And --- are you calling all those points arguments?
COMMENT #109 [Permalink]
...
Stephen
said on 12/7/2005 @ 3:01 am PT...
Anthony,
You are silly. How's that for a personal attack? I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would
a. find some reason to put my full name, Stephen Wang in quotes.
b. suggest that I was misinterpreting you concerning your characterization of being threatended in the phone conversation.
Keep in mind I only have your own statements to rely on.
Ok watch this. It's almost like magic. It's where you do this thing called "flip flopping"
"What you quoted is the voice message that Brad left me and I transcribed. I did not transcribe the "subsequent" phone conversation with Brad because I don't have it recorded. Again "the threat to put the number on the website came during my actual phone conversation with Brad"
ok so it was during the phone conversation. man do I feel stupid. Maybe I'll go back and figure out why I thought that it came from Brad's voice mail to you...
...
...
"Brad called my cell phone number and left me a message threatening to post my personal contact information and the contact information of my mother on his blog. I then responded to Brad's voicemail message and let him ask me question after question. He was so shocked that I stood my ground and defended freedom that he couldn't do anything but mischaracterize what I (and other supporters) said in his orignal post."
HOLY CRAP. what do you know? It was you who said the threat was in the message after all, your recollection of the phone conversation doesn't even mention him threatening you.
So... you've been caught either lying... or just to give you the benefit of the doubt, you weren't thinking clearly.
Anyways. This isn't about you remember?
Why don't you respond to the comments I've made that aren't about you, and are instead about Coulter? You don't like answering me for some reason on topics not about yourself.
Coulter on her page has a comment made by a Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice says he plans to boycott her advertisers. Ms. Coulter tells him that she plans to write his congressmen and have them beat him up. In the state of NY that kind of act is illegal under the hate crime act of 2000 and is also inciting violence.
Now about Ms. Cornell.
I agree, what Coulter did is as far as I can tell not illegal. If Cornell wanted the information kept private she would ask for it to be kept private. But I'm asking you as other people did how you feel about that on a morale level. Do you not feel that Coulter is culpable for the situation Cornell is in?
I do not think that Coulter posting her information on her site was a problem. USUALLY people have the sense and the etiquette to remove such sensitive information because they know such results are possible from extremists who are on the same side as them.
The problem is when Cornell asked Coulter to REMOVE the information from her site, Coulter refused and it's still up there for all to see. If Coulter wasn't responsible for death threats in the beginning, having knowledge that it was happening after the fact, ignoring requests to take it down, she is to some degree responsible now.
Are you aware of what being an accessory to a crime is? If something happens to Cornell, her having knowledge that the posting of sensitive information on her page was causing Cornell to become victim of threats, etc. and doing nothing, especially after requests for information removal, makes her an accessory to that crime. She was aiding a criminal. I hope nothing happens to Cornell.
So how do you feel about that Anthony? You can't be objective about law, laws are created based on moral/ethical frameworks of society, they are based on non-objective evaluations. You cannot separate yourself from how you feel about a situation. So now, do you still feel Coulter is in the wrong?
COMMENT #110 [Permalink]
...
Stephen
said on 12/7/2005 @ 3:19 am PT...
"Stephen tried to get me with an inconsistency and apparently was WRONG, so now you're trying to pretend that I've evaded the issue."
Gosh. It's so nice when I'm right. That and you did evade the issue, you still are. Why so afraid to have an opinion?
- Lydia Cornell wants to be a pundit. She should take responsibility for the opinions she puts out in the public venue.
Why shouldn't Coulter be held accountable for her opinions and factually incorrect statements that she repeatedly makes without remorse? She is so scared she doesn't even post her email address.
You keep repeating that you won't respond on the Coulter-Cornell issue because it is a private dispute between two citizens.
That's ridiculous. This is a legal issue. There is no reason you can't involve yourself.
There are a lot of things that are private disputes between citizens. People have opinions about them. Look at a few of these "private disputes":
Plessy vs. Ferguson-1896
Gideon vs. Wainright -1963
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier- 1988
Brown vs. Board of Education
Dredd Scott vs. Sandford
Roe vs. Wade
Any of these sound familar? I wonder what would have happened if the supreme court had said, wait wait wait, this is a private matter, you better have a duel.
COMMENT #111 [Permalink]
...
Stephen
said on 12/7/2005 @ 3:56 am PT...
wait wait wait.
Anthony, you signed a petition seeking the removal of hate crime laws? You realize those protect people right? Now I'm even more curious what you think about Coulter asking congressmen to beat up Mr. Rice (since that's illegal under the ny state hate crime act). I wish we lived in a society where hate crime laws are unneccesary, but we don't.
wow. that's callous.
COMMENT #112 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 12/7/2005 @ 7:25 am PT...
Anthony B #84
The public position is that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Libby, and Rove are not to be trusted. This is not a liberal position, if you will break out of your self-induced hypnotic trance for a moment, it is the position of the majority of the american people.
Even the right wing MSM acknowledges this poll fact, as do many conservatives. The writing is on the wall. So long as you hypnotically chant the stay the course mantra of an out of touch, out of reason, and out of it propaganda machine, the public will maintain the same view of you. And it is a sound and fair viewpoint.
The "Victory" you and yours now pray we will accept is tired.
You defined "victory" originally to be seizing WMD in Iraq. That war could not be won because it was a fantasy war.
Next "victory" was defined as being welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people. They did not, however, like shock and awe and random killings of their women and children, less water than before, less electricity than before, less security than before, a hyper increase of terrorists and terrorism, nor did they welcome US as liberators, and so that "victory" is also an illusion.
Next victory was bringing "freedom" to Iraq via elections. Like Vietnam elections where "83% of the vietnamese registered voters voted" in September of 1967 even tho the viet cong were terrorizing the populace, vietnam fell not too long thereafter. Having an election is not the hallmark of freedom in case you did not notice.
The word "victory" is another empty, meaningless, and useless term which is touted as the pinnacle of admin policies and the talking points of shills like yourself. It is shameful.
It is the lie word.
COMMENT #113 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 12/7/2005 @ 7:38 am PT...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public" (Theodore Roosevelt, republican, "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149 May 7, 1918).
COMMENT #114 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/7/2005 @ 8:00 am PT...
Looks like Anthony posted Stephen Wang's full name as a token gesture of spite.
Anthony - in my post #103 I fully addressed one of your "arguments," yet you didn't mention that when you stamped your foot and beligerantly suggested no one was yet "refuting" anything you said. Well, I beg to differ. I did.
Most of your "arguments" are not arguments and most aren't requiring of a response.
You bring up the Constitution and the right to privacy. ~~Anthony said: "The constitution of the United States does not include a right to privacy. This was a purposeful omission because it is sometimes necessary to invade one's privacy within the extent of the law." I'd like to hear you expound on what you actually meant by including this in your diatribe.
What do I think? I think it's obvious we have (at least in the past before the bu$h administration started removing our freedom & rights as US Citizens with the so-called "Patriot" Act) expected rights to privacy and they have previously been held up in the courts of law.
So - what are you saying? That suddenly we should not expect people to respect our right to privacy? In your envisioned world, do you have any rights to privacy, or not? If we don't have the "right to privacy" then why are you crying about Brad suggesting he might publish your personal information on this blog? (Even though he would not do it without your permission - some of us have seen Brad's consistent honor and integrity at work here over the last couple of years.)
Anthony - not every little thing can be written into law in the Constitution and I don't necessarily agree with your statement that the right to privacy was "a purposeful omission." Just remember that it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th (search and seizure limits,) and the 5th (self- incrimination limit.)
COMMENT #115 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/7/2005 @ 9:27 am PT...
Stephen is right - I did originally say that the threat was contained in the voice message, but then I corrected myself 5 TIMES and he still insists he's right (comment 111). That is partially true as I clarified 5 times after that it was the voice message COUPLED with the subsequent phone conversation. I clarified when i realized I wasn't clear.
Second, the only reason I know Stephen's full name is because he links to his personal website, which contains a lot more information about himself than just his name. He also went and found one of my old personal journals and commented there. Besides I mean a name is public information. It tells us nothing about him except that he exists.
Thirdly, you're right. The courts should decide personal disputes. If Lydia wants to take Coulter to court, then she should. Let the legal issues be presented there. Let all the evidence be presented there. And then, maybe, after I know all the facts of the case I'll give my opinion on the morality of it. For example, consider Sally hits Jane. That doesn't make Sally inherently evil. Jane could have been harming Sally, who was just defending herself as a last resort. It's stupid to make moral judgements when you don't have context.
Fourth, I signed the anti-hate crimes laws petitions because crimes are despicable. People should be punished for crimes, not for motives. If a black man kills a white man, it's just as much of a crime as if he had killed another black man. Or vice versa. Besides, how many "love" crimes have you heard of? Hate Crime laws are silly because they're part of our obsession with race in this country which needs to come to an end. We need to begin looking at people for who they are, not genetic factors we can't change.
In regards to 114, who said no one should criticize the administration. I do frequently and have done so on my show. He signed an education bill written by Ted Kennedy, signed McCain-Feingold which was a disgusting attack on political speech, nominated the unqualified Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and is spending worse than Ted Kennedy on a sober day. So, I'm not really sure where that came from.
In regards to 113, we were given the option to pull out of Iraq. That option was rejected 403-3.
In regards to 115, we do not have the right to privacy. If the government votes to invade our privacy and we don't like that, then we should vote that government out of office and institute one that will protect privacy as we would would like.
I never was "crying" about Brad threatening, or maybe a better word is offering, to post my personal contact information. I just pointed out that he thought he was going to find me crying. He thought that I was going to ask him not to. But no, I told him go right ahead. I have encouraged him several times to do whatever he wishes. I encouraged him to post the information on his website if he felt he needed to. I told him that was his free speech right. So, I don't know where that attack was coming from either. Incredible.
Post 103 is nothing except a bunch of out of context satire and proves nothing. Ann Coulter makes satire about public figures. That's fine and you have every right to criticize her. If I was a liberal I might be offended by some of the things she says. But I'm not. Neither do I get offended by the Michael Moore's, Al Franken's, or Ted Rall's. They are entertainers/satirists who use humor to prove points and excite their base. This is how you can explain Al Franken's video of him beating up a conservative with a baseball bat. Satire, folks. But satire has an underlying meaning behind it. A point. Calling me a rich kid with no basis and then attacking the generous people in my community who have helped me through unfortunate circumstances has no point but hatred. And I have every right to criticize your speech. I've been consistent in that all the time. You have every right to disagree with how Coulter treated Lydia. You can criticize it. I choose not to, so as not to prejudge. But I defend Coulter's right to do what she did.
Lastly, I'm not going to debate the Iraq war. I can only say that I wish the left would be as critical as the people on their own team who support the war as they are of Mr. Bush. Doubtful.
COMMENT #116 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/7/2005 @ 9:33 am PT...
What I meant was that our founding fathers knew that there would be times when the government would need to invade privacy. They left it up to the people and elected representatives to set these limits, not the courts. If it's not protected in the constitution it's in our hands. If you disagree with what Coulter did, either vote for people who would make it illegal or quit whining about it. As for me, I think it should be perfectly legal.
COMMENT #117 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/7/2005 @ 9:47 am PT...
Anthony - come back when you're older and have a bit more life experience under your belt.
We know Brad Friedman here - I, in no way, believe he threatened you.
I don't have time to waste with your run-around arguments.
Ta-ta.
COMMENT #118 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/7/2005 @ 10:03 am PT...
Clare Booth Luce (as promised) ~~ Strange choice indeed for the extremist rightwingers to choose as poster girl for their anti-feminist, Christian (so-called), Conservative (so-called) agenda.
She was the illegitimate daughter of dancer Anna Snyder and William Franklin Boothe.
At the age of 18 it's reported she had an illegal abortion.
She was a supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment.
She experimented with LSD in the late 1950s.
~~~~
Like I said - what an odd choice.
COMMENT #119 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/7/2005 @ 11:41 am PT...
LOL, Kira asks me to refute and explain my arguments. And I do. All (s)he can come up with is that a college student is supposedly too young! Haha.
All you can do is debate the semantics of the word 'threat'. I never said any threat was malicious. I just said Brad Friedman said he was considering putting my number on his website. Nothing more, nothing less.
When they don't have the facts all they can do is insult you. Now they claim a college student is too young to debate. Pathetic.
COMMENT #120 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/7/2005 @ 12:01 pm PT...
No, you're being pathetic Anthony. You will see after more years what I'm talking about when I say you need more life experience.
And you really are being a waste of time.
COMMENT #121 [Permalink]
...
Stephen
said on 12/7/2005 @ 12:33 pm PT...
Anthony,
"I clarified when i realized I wasn't clear."
No, you did no clarify, you changed your position. It went from threat in voicemail-> to threat in voicemail and conversation-> to threat in conversation.
You made comments related to this in post 54,74,80,83,89, and 96. 54 is your original position.
74,80, and 83 do not do anything for clarification because you still do not take the position that it had nothing to do with the voice mail and still consider that a threat.
you do not make a clear statement on what actually happened until 89. and then you repeat in 96.
You have 4 posts supporting the idea that it was in the voicemail and 2 posts asserting it was in the conversation. Please be more consistent in the future. I'm not going to argue this point with you because it's pointless.
You cannot assess a situation by end result. In most states as well as the military there are criminal charges that are very clear about "intent to kill or harm". If you remove intent from the equation you lose context completely. Would you try a person the same way if they accidently shot somebody or singled them out by race? End result is the same, furthermore you can't even determine the crime without knowing intent. Without intent the accidental shooting would still be murder.
Hate crimes are designed to curb the violence that singles out not only races, but anybody of a group, be it alternative sexualities, races, etc. The key word is that the violence is marred by hate. If say, you, get into a fight with me at a bar and stab me, most likely you didn't hate me, you just got in a fight with me. Crimes motivated by hate are much different.
Without a hate crime law, how do you properly assess crimes where someone throws a brick through your window with racial epithets on it? I guess this wouldn't make any sense to you since you've had little life experience. Hate crimes exist because prejudice exist, the legislation does not make the notion of race in our country stronger. Hate crimes are despicable because they are not one time deals. If it was just a crime it happens and it's over. Hate crimes leave you afraid, afraid with the notion that there exist people out there who hate you and will commit violent act against you for the color of your skin, your political views, your sexuality. Normal crimes, you don't worry about that, normal crimes you just know that you could be an innocent bystander, a victim of a crazy person. Please understand the difference before you advocate for the elimination of hate crime laws because you think they are redundant. A view like that shows lack of understanding and/or a disillusionment with the society you live in.
As for the constitution.
Your claim is that the government knew that it would have to invade your privacy sometime. That's ridiculous. Read history. Americans came to america , and later fought the Rev. War to escape the oppressive rule of Britain. Their motivation for creating the Constitution was to give a framework for our government while providing it with a series of limitations. That's what the constitution is, a series of things the government cannot do to you as the citizen, it is almost ridiculous in my opinion to even think that the founding fathers advocated for a more invasive government when it was that very thing they were fighting a war against.
You are correct, there is no right to privacy in the constitution. But again the constitution isn't a set of laws for the citizen, it is a set of things that the gov't can and can't do, they are enumerated explicitly. amendments 9 and 10 clearly say that the government is not to interfere where the constitution has explicitly allowed it to. This is almost ironic that you as a republican are advocating for more government intrusion.
Read your constitution.
Try again, Anthony.
Also, yes you are right, my posts do link to my website, yes they link to a lot of information. Was there a reason however to put my full name in quotation marks?
COMMENT #122 [Permalink]
...
annrice
said on 12/7/2005 @ 12:35 pm PT...
As far as Brad "threatening to post A.B.'s phone number, I read that as simply an attempt to illustrate to the boy of how improper Ann Coulter's behavior is, using Ms. Cornell's personal info in such a petulant, petty way, and not as a "threat".
I think he already knows that, and willfully chose to interpret it as an actual "threat", rather than as an example of how wrong Coulter's line of thinking (?) is, simply because it suits him to do so (like a con-artist grabbing his neck in pain if his car gets rear-ended at 2MPH).
This was no actual threat. Brad has shown himself to have far more integrity than that.
My vote? It was a simple "point illustration", not a threat.
COMMENT #123 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/7/2005 @ 12:36 pm PT...
Tune in tomorrow when I post fun stuff about the odd choice for Clare Booth Luce as hood ornament for the radical right!
COMMENT #124 [Permalink]
...
Steve F
said on 12/7/2005 @ 1:11 pm PT...
re: Post #119 by KIRA
It's not so much an odd choice. But perhaps more of an inspirational one - on the basis of the assumption that you're telling the truth here.
In any case, it goes to show anyone can change and nobody is born divine.
That's the usual mix up within the liberal party. In order to stand for any standards at all - you must be born divine and stay divine your entire life.
Hope that clears it up for you.
COMMENT #125 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/7/2005 @ 1:47 pm PT...
First of all, I find everyone's "life experience" comments a little patronizing and insulting. I think I've had a little more life experience than most of the people on this blog. Life experience comes from living in a home full of domestic violence, drugs, and divorce. Life experience is seeing your father being hauled away to prison or watching him attempt suicide and be hauled away to a mental hospital. Life experience is being raised by a single mother who doesn't know if she'll be able to pay the bills. Life experience is losing that thing you called a home for all your life to a disgusting hurricane. Life experience is living through all of that and realizing that you need to work hard and do your best and be a part of the community and live the American dream. So you liberals can come on here and tell me that I need life experience, but you'll just never understand, will you?
Furthermore, Stephen Wang has no idea what he is talking about. Yes, I admitted that my position needed clarifying. The voice message itself was not threatening. It was the seed of the threat. I clarified that many times as that is my position. However, I'm sure we'll get another post from Mr. Wang explaining again how I'm wrong about this...
In reference to number 123, of course I know Brad was trying to illustrate a point. Again you guys misinterpret my usage of threat - which is simply Brad said he might do it. On the phone he said he might do it. His quote was "I haven't decided yet". That to me constitutes a threat, though I grant it isn't a malicious one. I think Brad simply said that to try to change my opinion on Coulter... but I remain consistent.
On the right to privacy lets consult some former supreme court justices...
"With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court." -Justice Potter Stewart
"some imaginary and unknown fragment designated as the 'right of privacy.'" -Justice Hugo Black
I am an originalist. I believe the constitution can change, but only through the AMENDMENT process. I believe the document says only what it says and that the people should sort out the rest. I don't support a judicial dictatorship, as some liberals do because they can't win at the ballot box...
Lastly, hate crimes are repetetive law. Like it or not, being a racist is not a crime. It's a different opinion. It's a different belief. It's a disgusting opinion and a disgusting belief, but nonetheless is constitutionally protected. The crime is when one acts on those beliefs by inflicting harm on another. The crime should be punished. Hate crimes laws are just laws on the books to make liberals feel good about being liberals.
COMMENT #126 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/7/2005 @ 1:47 pm PT...
Hah! Didn't you miss the point!!!
Don't pretend you're unaware that your party constantly howls about those evil liberal theater folk, and abortion, and druggies and femi-nazis who support ERA.
Please spare us that nuttiness.
COMMENT #127 [Permalink]
...
owen
said on 12/7/2005 @ 2:34 pm PT...
OK, I am arriving a little late to this incredibly enlightening conversation, but here is my two cents worth...
This is the first post from Anthony Bonna on this thread:
I sent Brad my response to the Lydia Cornell situation. I am pretty sure I am one of the "fake conservatives who refused to condemn Coulter". Both Brad and I know this is a mischaracterization of my position and what I told him. I hope Brad will be fair to his readers and post my complete response himself... As always, I give Brad the opportunity to come on my show and say his peace. I hope he'll give me that same respect.
Anthony Bonna
Student
Georgetown University
Now before I am accused of anything here, I would like to point out that I just copied and pasted this message from above. I did not alter it in any way.
Anthony, I am also a student (actually a PhD candidate in Marine Sciences), and I appreciate that you are working hard to put yourself through school.
One important point that is revealed in your first post is your statement that: 'I am pretty sure I am one of the "fake conservatives who refused to condemn Coulter"'.
So this is really confusing to me. Clearly you do not really consider yourself to be a "fake conservative". Your ability to use bullet points and parrot conservative party lines such as Bush is "spending worse than Ted Kennedy on a sober day", and a plethora of others clearly demonstrates that you have impeccable credentials as a "real" Conservative.
Yet, you appear on this site churning out baseless attacks on Brad, and post a transcript of his message, which actually seems rather cordial, and non-threatening--clearly he was just making a point. Then you go on to advertise many aspects of your life, your show, and all things Anthony (just an aside here, this is not meant to be insulting to you, I am just trying really hard to understand where you are coming from), and act offended when other people reference the information that you provided.
So, Anthony, since you have sufficiently demonstrated that you are not a "fake conservative", it is obvious that this post was never about you in the first place. You can go back to the dorms and study for your finals now. Good luck!
COMMENT #128 [Permalink]
...
Stephen
said on 12/7/2005 @ 3:16 pm PT...
Anthony,
I don't know what I"m talking about? In what sense? You posted one definitive statement, it was incorrect, and you posted another one after perpetuating the first statement's interpretation for 4 posts. Then you change your position. It was not because of clarity, it was because your first statement was incorrect. THere is a difference between being incorrect and being unclear. THere is nothing vague about saying "the threat was in the voicemail".
None of your life experiences have anything to do with... at least what I was talking about. So you come from a troubled family, I'm sorry for that. That wasn't what I was talking about though, none of those have anything to do with your being able to understand what a hate crime is and why the hate crime laws exist. If anything Hate Crime Laws exist to serve as a deterrent to racially, gender, disability, sexuality focused violence, due to intolerance of another party. Being racist, sexist, etc. is not against the law, but it sets a bad precedent for our country when the existence of such crimes compromise the integrity of our nations morality.
As for the nonsense about hate crime laws being enacted to make liberals feel good about themselves. This is just a ridiculous statement. Hate crime legislation was a bipartisan effort within congress as well as the senate. To say that it is a product of liberal do-gooding, is silly. Furthermore, how do we benefit from eliminating hate crime laws? What is wrong with trying to eliminate prejudice by means of harsher penalties for a hate motivated crime? How is that different from there being different degrees of murder? Are first, second and third degree murder redundant?
About privacy, you are right, the supreme court justices are right, there is nothing in it about right to privacy. But that's where you cease to be correct, at least in my constitutional interpretation.
The constitution is about restricting governmental rights, not about citizens rights. Why aren't you responding to that? America is built on the foundation of protecting its citizens from invasive government such as what they were living under during British rule. One again, 9th and 10th amendments.
Stop avoiding the questions and making it about yourself. I haven't heard one original opinion out of you that hasn't been a regurgitation of Ann Coulter. Perhaps you'd like to quote her as you're teetering on plagiarism.
Toodles. Now I wonder how many of my points you are going to respond to?
How come you didn't respond to my comment about Coulter threatening Mr. Rice? You study law... (maybe), what she did was illegal in NYC. Does that not matter to you or are you just going to avoid the issue again?
COMMENT #129 [Permalink]
...
KestrelBrighteyes
said on 12/7/2005 @ 3:35 pm PT...
Psssssssst....I think y'all are wrestlin with pigs again.
IMHO, that is.
If y'all want to see if Ms Coulter has done something illegal, I'd suggest doing a search to find out if anyone has ever been charged with making personal information available that resulted in someone being stalked, harassed, and/or injured.
LEMMETHINK_NOT - What's your take on this, from a legal standpoint?
Cornell is in Beverly Hills, Coulter is in NYC (I think?)
COMMENT #130 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/7/2005 @ 3:52 pm PT...
Owen, I think you know that I was referencing the original post about 'fake conservatives'. I used Brad's terminology. I didn't say I was a fake conservative; I said that I was what Brad was referring to as a 'fake conservative'. That is why quotes were in order.
I only brought up stuff about myself in response to personal attacks. A person baselessy calls me a rich, spoonfed conservative. I contradict that. A person baselessy says they "feel bad for the people who helped me get where I am". I contradict that. A person baselessly says I have no life experience. I contradict that.
Brad listened to my show and initiated contact with me. For about the 8th time I maintain that the seed of the threat was in the voice message. The word threat as I used it was simply meaning that Brad said he might possibly put the number on the website. Which he said on the telephone. When we hung up he clarified by saying "I'm not sure if I'm going to do it yet". Either way, I was never alarmed by this possibility. In fact I encouraged Brad to do what he wished. You all are missing the point.
The tenth amendment reserves questions not addressed in the constitution to the states, my friend because as you admit - the constitution can't cover every single law. Democracy and voting can.
Hate crimes legislation doesn't work. It doesn't solve anything except establish an Orwellian thought police state. I'm a freedom guy until that freedom harms another. And when that freedom harms another, it's the act I'll attack.
As for Coulter threatening Mrs. Rice... It wasn't actually just a threat... She was just "illustrating a point".
COMMENT #131 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/7/2005 @ 4:02 pm PT...
It all makes sense now. I come on a board with liberals and am forced to debate the meaning of the word "is" instead of what actually is. Typical.
COMMENT #132 [Permalink]
...
MMIIXX
said on 12/7/2005 @ 4:25 pm PT...
Life experience Lesson Number 1 : When you find yourself in a hole ,STOP DIGGING !
ps.pass it on to gwb
COMMENT #133 [Permalink]
...
owen
said on 12/7/2005 @ 4:47 pm PT...
Anthony,
My point, which you avoided completely (or missed), was that you automatically assumed that Brad was talking about you when he referred to "fake conservatives". As I stated above, and as you have made painfully clear, you do not seem to qualify as a "fake conservative". Therefore, it appears that you are only being driven to debating liberals about "the meaning of the word "is" instead of what actually is" by your own insecurities about what it means to be a "true" conservative.
By the way, I read with some interest your post about your family life. I am truly sorry that you had such negative experiences. I do wonder, however, why you would be driven towards the "every man for himself" agenda espoused by conservatives. It sounds like your mother could have used some more help from social services. Again, please do not take this as a personal attack on you. I sincerely think that you may want to take the time to really think about what it means for conservatives to cut programs that benefit the most needy Americans to help "balance" the budget (this does refer back to your assessments of Bush's spending) while hiding upcoming tax cuts for the least needy uberwealthy behind their backs.
Before you spout some party line talking points as a "response" to this, please think about it for a bit. Oh, and another little tidbit for you--I am also a futures trader, and am surrounded by the uberwealthy. It is total and complete nonsense to assert that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy. Rich people DO NOT spend this type of money on things that stimulate the economy, or hire more people to work for them--they reinvest it. Believe me I know!
ps you seem like a bright guy--why don't you spend your time doing more productive things than battling windmills and making up ridiculous accusations about "typical" liberal behavior?
COMMENT #134 [Permalink]
...
Judge of Judges
said on 12/7/2005 @ 7:32 pm PT...
When george w bush speaks God kills a Kitten.
COMMENT #135 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/7/2005 @ 8:23 pm PT...
Anthony - tsk, tsk. I never you have had "no life experience." That is a misrepresentation of my words.
Good post, Owen. Thanks for sharing your insight with us.
COMMENT #136 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 12/7/2005 @ 9:04 pm PT...
Owen, #133
I've made the same argument in this thread: without disclosing that Brad contacted him prior to posting this article, Anthony played the victim role by asserting that HIS views were being mischaracterized, that he was under personal attack, and... well, you get the idea. It's all right there to see. What was also immediately clear was that he wanted to use this forum as a promotional gimmick for his radio show. His reason for being here and the arguments he brings are disingenous at best. Good luck trying to get that point across to him.
COMMENT #137 [Permalink]
...
Anthony Bonna
said on 12/7/2005 @ 10:15 pm PT...
LOL, this is great. At post 136, we're still debating whether or not I'm disingenuous. Again, Brad contacted me. Had Brad not contacted me I never would have been on this blog, as I have been on no other blogs promoting my show. I posted my arguments but people chose to attack me. Then when people chose to attack me and i defended myself they said I was playing a victim. People say I need more life experience but then say they never said I had no life experience. I'm a republican because I believe in the ideas in Star Parker's Uncle Sam's plantation. It seems this blog has lost the focus on the issue at hand. I have no more time for a blog out of touch with reality and resorts to making issues personal and debating the semantics of words (and don't tell me thats bad semantics). This will be my last post as I won't look at this blog thread again. I think after my elaborate posts people know what kind of guy I am and where I stand and fairminded people will realize that I'm defending Ann Coulter's freedom, but also Lydia Cornell's freedom to criticize her. I wish the best to Lydia as she is a real sweet individual and has not been hostile to me as some others find they must. I also wish you all well and a Merry Christmas.
COMMENT #138 [Permalink]
...
Soul Rebel
said on 12/7/2005 @ 10:59 pm PT...
Hey, check it out...another one says "this is my last post here"
Does this mean he loses? This is a good trend.
COMMENT #139 [Permalink]
...
Knowmad
said on 12/8/2005 @ 11:08 am PT...
Everyone: You might want to stop responding to Anthony B., as it's probably precisely what he wants/needs in order to maintain and promote his little stage in the spotlight.
As for you, Anthony, you strike me as merely another insecure, frightened, conservative peon, a Mehlman wannabe, reduced by the incredible ineptitude and gross corruption of your mentors (Annie included) to relying upon disraction, misdirection, obfuscation and other devious means of ducking the truth. Imagine.
C'mon kid, you seem relatively intelligent. What can you possibly hope to gain by trying to defend the obviously indefensible. I suspect you have struck a deal, and if so you may want to re-consider, quickly, as the more you side with these pathetic failures, the more you risk being tarred with the same brush. Assuming you've not yet been totally turned, you must still realize that nothing is more important than your integrity.
I strongly suggest you get out before it's too late. Good luck.
COMMENT #140 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/8/2005 @ 12:03 pm PT...
COMMENT #141 [Permalink]
...
owen
said on 12/8/2005 @ 12:20 pm PT...
Somehow I know that our friend Anthony is still peeking in every now and again. I do not think that the type of egotism/insecurity that he displayed so blatantly can just walk away from a debate that he instigated, regardless of the lack of credibility of his original position.
His appearance here does generate some thought about how relatively bright people turn to conservatism. I guess it was a way out for him--if the portrait that he presented of his upbringing and family life was true, then he felt that he needed to tug the heartstrings of the cons to provide some monetary support. It is funny how conservatives look down on social services, yet feel no qualms about taking handouts from other conservatives--is that not another form of welfare that merely bypasses the legitimacy of funneling money through the state system?
Perhaps we could find a bunch of Anthonys, and cultivate a double agent network where we teach them how to spout nonsensical jingoism and formulate thoughts in bullet points. These Judas plants could infiltrate the Republican party, rise to power through the typical channels of corruption and manipulation, and then turn after having some epiphanic revelation that the neocon world domination plan is not in the best interest of Americans.
I like it! It reads like a great novel...or more precisely like a typical Rovian ploy. Let’s get Carville to work on it right away!
COMMENT #142 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 12/8/2005 @ 12:37 pm PT...
Anthony, #137
After reviewing your comments I noticed this gem, which I must have missed before:
I didn't ask to be involved in this blog.
You never were. As I've said, the article was never about you until you wanted it to be. You wrote Brad a letter, and left a comment here. You can't say that it was to defend yourself, because no attack ever took place. I have said that Brad rakes 'fake conservatives' over the coals all the time, this was in no way a direct reference to you and you don't seem to fit into this category anyway. It's okay to want to be involved, Anthony, just don't try to hide it.
Also:
I challenge Brad to present the other side of this debate
I give Brad the opportunity to come on my show and say his peace[sic].
Again, I invite Brad on my show next week
I again extend Brad an invitation to come on The Right Stuff this Friday and hope he accepts.
You don't seem to be aware of the image you create for yourself by coming onto a blog with no introduction or background, causing debate for debates sake, and promoting yourself and your radio show. Hence the negative reaction from the regulars.
I'll simply restate that I did not claim you are playing the victim because of personal attacks from other commenters. Rather, you came to the blog assuming you were already under attack and felt you had to defend yourself, when in reality (which you may want to get in touch with) this was never the case. Therefore, the entire premise of you being here is disingenous. Hope this helps clarify the position I am expressing, which you will no doubt fight to the death to defend.
Happy Kwaanza.
COMMENT #143 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/8/2005 @ 1:14 pm PT...
I like it too, Owen.
Not to take away from A's near-tragic upbringing, there are many, many who have had the same or much worse and have to deal with it over time. I wanted to say earlier that more years of life experience under my own belt helped me understand that myown trauma and troubling upbringing was not as singular as I once thought. I used to bring my own subject up (and fondle it) until I finally became aware that it wasn't all that unique and that there were others who had it much worse. Life experience isn't learned any other way than by LIVING many years, no matter how bright you are.
I now support programs that help disadvantaged people get back on their feet so they can become productive members of society. Unfortunately this bu$h administration has actively raped the disadvantaged - the poor - and the elderly.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your comments regarding social services and the "gimme, gimme, gimme" new "conservatives."
COMMENT #144 [Permalink]
...
Kira
said on 12/8/2005 @ 3:03 pm PT...
PS - To clarify --- I have always supported programs for the disadvantaged (not just "now" as I typed in my #143.)
And - the "christian" rightwingers need to study Jesus' firm stance on helping the disadvantaged, the sick and the poor. They keep missing his message.
COMMENT #145 [Permalink]
...
merifour
said on 12/9/2005 @ 9:57 am PT...
The lid was blown off the 60's shows years ago. All the 'normal' familie sitcoms in the era ie: "Leave it to Beaver' etc. My generation grew up believing that people actually lived that way...omigod. Then came the great awakening.... many of us didn't live that way. One by one people came to realize their families weren't 'normal', all kinds of disfunction. Disfunctional families were more the norm. Everyone I know seems to have a story. Many of us are the walking wounded but have seen what happened and have moved past that period in our lives, have examined how our belief systems were formed and are in the process of 'getting over it'. I believe we can choose to be victims of our childhood or rise above it and move on. I, for one, examined the years I spent in my dysfuntional family, took the best and left the rest. M4
COMMENT #146 [Permalink]
...
Brett
said on 12/13/2005 @ 10:24 am PT...
HEY BRAD,
Whats your phone number?
COMMENT #147 [Permalink]
...
Burton
said on 3/12/2006 @ 10:44 pm PT...
Ann Coulter? Oh yea that hot gal about a million times smarter than ANY liberal!
Brad who?
COMMENT #148 [Permalink]
...
george lows
said on 4/6/2006 @ 5:42 pm PT...
From The Desk Of barrister georgealiaseccounter
# 7 Craig St, Victoria Island,
Lagos, Nigeria.
E-mail:chamber_of_barristergeorgealiaseccounter@yahoo.com
Attn"
permit me to introduce my humbleself to you......
I am Barrister georgelows, a solicitor at law.
I am the personal attorney to Mr Mark Ross , A national of your country who used to work with Shell Development Company in Nigeria, On the 2nd of April 2002, my client, his wife And their three children were involved in a car accident along Shagamu Express way. All occupants of the vehicle unfortunately lost their lives. Since then I have made several enquiries to your embassy to locate any of my clients extended relatives, this has also proved unsuccessful.
After these several unsuccessful attempts, I decided to trace his relatives over the Internet,to locate any member of his family but of no avail, hence I contacted you.
I have contacted you to assist me in repartrating the money left behind by my client before they get confisticated or declared unserviceable by the finance house where this huge deposits were lodged. Particularly, the finance house where the deceased had an account valued at Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand USA Dollars ($7,500.000) has issued me a notice to provide the next of kin or have the account confisicated within the next ten official working days. since I have been unsuccesfull in locating the relatives for over three years now, I seek your consent to present you as the next of kin to the deceased so that the proceeds of this account valued at $7,500.000 Million Dollars can be paid to you and then you and i can share the money. 60% to me and 40% to you, I have all necessary legal documents that can be used to back up any claim we may make.
All I require is your honest cooperation to enable us see this transaction through.
I guarantee that this will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law.
Please get in touch with me through this my private secured and confidential email(barristergeorgealiaseccounter@yahoo.com to enable us discuss further.
Best Regards.
Barristergeorge lows
__________________________________________________