If its a dumb argument, its a dumb argument.  I'd imagine what she was trying to say is "right wing evil are bad and left wing dingbats -- well, they don't really represent most people so the aren't so bad"

So Brak Obama should be judged by the comments of the pastor of his racist church, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is also his friend?

Here is the  Rev. Jeremiah Wright charachterizing 911 as needed "wake up call" for whites:

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after9/11/01. White America and the Western world came torealize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just "disappeared" as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns"

Here is the Rev. dismissing the murder of a girl because she's white (same link as above):

"One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama getsdrunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and "gives it up" while in a foreign country and that stays in the newsfor months!"

Wright also has claimed the United States "this created AIDS". He also thinks Nixon was impeached (which isn't offensive, just funny):

"one of the things I think I remember from the 70s about "where I came in" is the impeachment of Richard Milhouse Nixon. The President of the United States was caught inthe midst of misleading the country and engaging in illegal activities and he was impeached. The current President ofthe United States is guilty of much worse crimes yet no oneis mentioning the word "impeachment."

Speaking of hypocrisy, don't expect any on the left to complain about the explicitly political nature of so much of the "preaching" that goes on in Wright's, or any other black church.

Hm, I must be a racist too, because I found it disturbing that the one blonde 18-year old disappearing remained on top of the news for months, when during that time hundreds of people died from murder, suicide, and car accidents.  American media focuses on the blonde & photogenic, and ignores most murders and other deaths on a regular basis.  I don't see a dismissal of her death in that statement.  

9/11 was a tragedy, and a wake-up call.  Wasn't it?  

But I haven't seen any quotes from Wright about how the blonde chick deserved to die, or anything that's actually racist.  Maybe I'm missing something?  

Thalia  

No, nothing dismissive in the Reverened going out of his way to observe a murder victim was "drunk" and "gives it up". And I'm sure you and the good Rev. would have no objection if someone used the same terms in reference to a murdered black woman.

"9/11 was a tragedy, and a wake-up call.  Wasn't it? "

He equates the motivations of 911 (which he describes as a wake-up call for "white America", not "America") with the racial greviances of blacks. Since he's dedicated his life to advancing black racial greviances, he's implying "white America" deserved 911.

No black people died on 9/11.

Black America doesn't need a terrorist wake-up call. They get a terrorist wake-up call every day.

Really?  Am I a pedophile because I read Lolita too?

If you were paying Nabokov to give lectures about his views on little girls, and what to do with them, yes.  You notice I didn't address the people who buy her vile slanderous books, didn't you?  I was discussing political candidates who fundraise with her, and political hacks who pay for her to lecture to them about her views on those "traitors" and "faggots."

Thalia

You're a pedophile, Rombuu?  That's just disgusting.  

Well, I do like feet.  Oh wait...

Even worse I did go see Michael Moore speak once, which must mean I condone being a loud, fat idiot.

But my opinion did not change because he hired some blogger who once said something satirical about Christianity.

Of course, the anti-religious comments weren't the only offensive things written. Former Edwards hire Amanda Marcotte is also on the hook for racist and possibly libelous comments against members of the Duke lacrosse team, well after the rape case against them started to fall apart. I'd say that affirming racially-based selective ignoring of the Fourth Amendment certainly qualifies as a match for Coulter's Guantanamo statement.

So, I ask again: based on your own rule, should Edwards quit the presidential race?

Of course, not because Edwards is on the side of truth and goodness.  The actual details of those fucking idiots he hired doesn't matter, nor his horrendous judgment he displayed by actually employing those people.

So TnT is Steve's Urkel's website?

Not at all. But if I understand Thalia's thesis -- there is a taint by association.

Hang out at enough Klan rallys and you are implicitly condoning the Klan is the general gist of what I think she is saying. (Thali please free to jump in and correct me).

Presumably under the Thalia Doctrine, failing to take action in regards to obnoxious comments constitutes acquiescence.

If you think the significant difference is that Ann Coulter has her own website whereas TnT is a shared forum, then what about people who visit the Ann Coulter website?

Where does the "buck of blame" stop?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

Not at all. But if I understand Thalia's thesis -- there is a taint by association.

I believe she was referring specifically to sponsors:

I'm amazed and impressed at how little grief her sponsors are getting.  She's getting paid quite a lot money to be an inflamatory asshole.  The fourteenth time she says something outrageous simply saying "golly, what a shock to hear her say such a thing!" isn't enough.  You either don't attend & suck up to Ms. Coulter, or you're absolutely endorsing whatever tripe she is spewing.

The use of "attend" in there does make it sound like if you go to see her speak, then you're a sponsor. That's obviously not always true (you could be press, you could be curious, you could be there to try and assassinate her... I'm just sayin'...).

Of course, most attendees are there to hear her speak, and their ticket money is going to pay her for her speeches. So, in effect, it's a paid endorsement. By contrast, there's no such effect at TnT. First  off, there's not a single voice being represented, and the "speakers" are not receiving endorsement by anyone's attendance or donation.

Point being, the TnT comparison seems to be a major stretch, even though I see the point you're arguing.

Me personally, I think her direct endorsers do share some blame. Part of Thalia's point, which I agree with, is that this isn't the first, or the second, or even the 10th time she's made similar comments. At this point, if you're endorsing her, you know what you're paying for. Saying "gee, I'm shocked" is just C.Y.A. B.S.

Now with caps!

Hang out at enough Klan rallys and you are implicitly condoning the Klan is the general gist of what I think she is saying/

I take the gist to be: Sponsor enough Klan rallies and "you're absolutely endorsing whatever tripe (they are) spewing", which is a far cry from my endorsing Steve Urkel's posts because I choose to lurk the same public forum.

As for people who visit Ann Coulter's website, the key is still support. Certainly people to pay for special access are endorsing the message because they're explicitly supporting the messenger. The non-subscribing viewer who doesn't click on any ads isn't providing any real support, so it's hard to see their traffic as endorsement.

And as Thalia also points out, this isn't the first, or tenth, outrageous thing Coulter has said - it's hard to argue that you weren't expecting some of your entrance fee was going to support bat-shittery.

I don't have issues with people who viist Coulter's web site (but I do with the people who pay for content there, or place ads there), or people who read her books (although I would lose some respect for someone who pays for her books).  There is a big difference in paying someone $$$ to be a headline speaker at your conference, and yet-another-almost-anonymous commenter.  This is why I was so amazed at the vitriol directed at HuffingtonPost, after some anonymous blog commenter made some asshole remark.  You are not responsible for the comments made by Urkel or rombuu or anyone else.  Nor am I.  Now if TnT switched to stories about how blacks are inferior, and how we should lock up the towelheads and assassinate the Supreme Court, THEN I would say that sponsors should be held liable.  As long as it's only the occasional idiotic comment, it's a different kettle of fish.   I wouldn't have a problem with Ms. Coulter if she weren't collecting large amounts of money, and being a headliner at events with Republican presidential candidates.

Thalia

I see where you are coming from Thalia, and honestly I'm sympathetic. However I'm wary of what gets interpreted as sponsorship. For example -- my donations to the ACLU contributes/sponsors that organization.

The thing is although the ACLU does a lot of good work I agree with, they also launch a lot of lawsuits I disagree with. Overally I think onbalance they are a good organization and one worth funding.

In the same way, CPAC represents more than just the view of Ann Coulter. I happen to read the Libertarian blog and they had quite a few entries on CPAC -- nary a one focusing on the activities of Ms. Coulter.

I would hesitate to agree that those who attended CPAC were supporters of Ann Coulters position, in the same way I'd hesitate to say that those who attended the Million Man March were supporters of Louis Farrakhan.

Things get very fuzzy once you start trying to lay responsibility for other people's words/actions. You have a point (I believe), I just think that there are better ways (shunning for example) to hold Ann Coulter accountable rather than going after those who  are deemed to have "sponsored" her.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.