 |
|
Add to My Group
|
June 28, 2007 at 00:39:10
Paris Hilton shows more class and beauty than Ann Coulter could ever dream of |
|
 
|
As I watched the following feed from MSNBC on their ‘Morning, Joe’ show in which their news anchor Mika Brzezinski tore up a lead story handed to her by her producers concerning Paris Hilton a thought came to mind. Why did Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ have to invite Ann Coulter onto his show? No, this is not about censorship, but raising the level of intelligent political debate in this country. 
Instead of inviting Coulter on; how about inviting someone onto his show that can rationally discuss important news topics such as the war in Iraq or this ‘Grand Compromise’ bill on illegal immigration?
Exactly what value does Ann Coulter have to the listening audience? She has none! While both are blondes, clearly it is Coulter who is the bimbette. Oh and at least Paris has more fashion sense and does not wear the same skimpy black dress while on-air that Coulter seems to do.
As much as some are tiring of Paris Hilton’s escapades and I cannot believe that I am even taking the time to write of her, she (Hilton) is angelic compared to the mean-spirited Ann Coulter. To her credit, Paris Hilton has never show as much vitriolic hate as Coulter has done and continues to do.
To contribute in a positive fashion to this society, Paris Hilton “has also actively contributed in numerous fashion circles, often collaborating with top designers at their shows. Some of these designers and labels include Tommy Hilfiger, Joey and T, Heatherette, Richard Tyler, and Jeremy Scott. Currently, she is designing a high-end purse collection with her sister.” I think that her business enterprises at least contribute to this society instead of selling books filled with such vile hate.
As Paris sat in that jail cell for 23 out of her 45 day sentence, I am sure that is the place in which Coulter should have been on several occasions. I will give you clear examples as to why.
When she said that someone should slip “rat poison” into U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens’ “Crème Brulee”, what she failed at recognizing being the miscreant that she is that some nut job who adores her would do so for her. Yes, there is freedom of speech in this country, but if the words spoken by someone are carried out by another, those who spoke those words should be held accountable.As Media Matters reported, “Ann Coulter again suggested that New York Times staff members should be "executed" over the paper's reports on the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and a Treasury Department program designed to track international financial transactions for terrorist activity.” That is horrific and she should be held to account and jailed. We are living in dangerous times in which some crack-pot could actually carry that directive out as suggested by Coulter. Yet, she has never been held to account.
Again, as reported by Media Matters and other news sources, here is what Coulter stated of the NY Times building, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." We have seen what suicide bombers of radicalism can do and she preaches just as much hate as those radical extremists. What exactly is to stop a believer in her verbiage from carrying out such a terrorist act? Yet, Coulter remains free.
On ‘Hardball’ yesterday, this is what Coulter had to say of presidential candidate, John Edwards, "If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." Former Senator Edwards should be given Secret Service protection after she said that. Again, it all boils down to some nut-job carrying out the wishes of Ann Coulter.While some will say that this is just free speech, please remember that shouting fire in a crowded auditorium is not protected by free speech and this is tantamount to endangering the lives of others.
So while Paris Hilton at least accepted some form of responsibility by ending any appeal that would have kept her out of jail, she at least has some morals and realized that she had to own up to her actions. Her celebrity is far less dangerous than Ann Coulter’s is. If there is any story to tear up and any person that should not be spoken of given her prior hate speech as well as her present, it is Ann Coulter and not Paris Hilton.
In closing while MSNBC namely Mika Brzezinski tries to instill her belief of what is news-worthy, the producers of MSNBC failed miserably when they pushed her to report of Hilton. But, they were far more egregious in inviting Ann Coulter onto ‘Hardball’. In watching several clips of Hilton’s appearance on ‘Larry King Live’ she at least showed more class and beauty than Coulter could ever dream of showing.
Author’s email address is, xmjmac@optonline.net
http://www.mary-macelveen.blogspot.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 10 comments |
|
Maher's comment
Back in March, Bill Maher said on his show something to the effect that it was too bad the attempted bombing of Cheney in Iraq didn't succeed. How does this type of speech differ from Coulter's speech? I think a commedienne is expected to be more outrageous because the speech is not taken literally. But this is how the other side justifies the Edward's attack. Unfortunately it seems we must tolerate this kind of speech as the price we pay for being able to freely speak. Thankfully we are also able to speak out against such speech. by John F Howes CPA (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 8:21:39 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Maher, Coulter and Cheney
Yes, I see your point about Maher. I heard him say it and I wish he didn't. However, you must understand that Cheney is responsible for thousands of deaths, both American military and civilian in addition to foreign civilian casualties. So, while the statement does go over the top, the basis for it is somewhat understandable. Coulter just says things for personal profit, making her no better than a cheap whore. As far as Cheney goes, he needs to be impeached, convicted and extradited to The Hague for trial on charges of Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War (Article I, IMT), Waging of Aggressive War (Article II, IMT), War Crimes (Article III, IMT) and Crimes Against Humanity (Article IV, IMT). IMT stands for International War Tribunal, better known as the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46, the basis for The Hague court. by Kenneth Barr (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 107 comments) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:47:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Wasting time
I only clicked on this article to add a comment....WHY does this particular comparison mean anything? These are two people who are not giving the orders or doing the dying. I feel strongly that the current course our country is taking has much to do with the American public giving time and brain space to those who are just acting out to be 'famous'. When we as a people wake up and start dealing with the issues that really effect us, then perhaps we will not have so much time for the silly (but rich) people. by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 9:42:55 AM (0+)
|
|
panache maybe, class does not apply here
<(0_0)> by HL Bumpkin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 9:55:44 AM (0+)
|
|
National Treasures
The self-righteousness regarding Hilton and Coulter is tiresome. Face it, they're both fun to watch in action. In fact, I hang on everything Coulter says. As for Paris, what most people forget about her is how hard she worked to get where she is. She used to be on that show about the paparazzi that the E channel ran for a few years. Whenever the paparazzi showed up, she'd always turn, smile and pose for them. How many other of their intended subjects do that? Those few that do are generally grin and bearing it. She was actually working the photogs, as well as thriving on the attention. Besides, her "Simple Life" show is no picnic. As far as degree of difficulty, it gets many more points than the average reality show (though it falls short of "Dirtiest Jobs"). But my favorite Paris moment is the time she was on stage with her friend, who's the daughter of Rod Stewart. Both astride idling motorcycles, her friend's was apparently in gear and she tweaked the accelerator. She fell (obligatory panty-less shot). Paris, though, not only didn't even budge to get off her bike and help her friend, she didn't even show a glimmer of distress. Which one of them is more heavily drugged? by Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:20:31 AM (0+)
|
|
They are both worthless
There is no defense for Paris Hilton she broke the law. then tried to get out of it. She got speical treatment because she is a rich b*tch. Had a been joe poor he would have gotten life 3 stikes law in CA. Ann Coulter is just trying to make a buck anyway she can. She worthless also . I can not believe how opt eds have devoted to these to selfish women. Their are more important thing going on. by Gareece (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:35:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Huh?
Let's see if I have this straight. Paris Hilton, a serial drink driver, which establishes her as and actual clear and present danger to public safety; is classier that Ann Coulter, who uses reactionary, hateful and incendiary speech to line her own pockets, thus establishing herself as a potential clear and present danger to our very freedoms! All I see here is a choice beween potassium cyanide and hydrochloric acid! by Kenneth Barr (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 107 comments) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:40:49 PM (0+)
|
|
PH/AC
MOVE ON, as in Yawn... by RM Merrill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:51:37 PM (0+)
|
|
The First Amendment
As this article and some of the comments below it indicate, the meaning of the phrase “freedom of speech” is not clearly understood by Americans. That fact is noteworthy and worthy of consideration – it’s analogous to Christians not understanding the meaning of some core Christian principle, such as redemption or sin – but, that would be a digression here. Having freedom of speech, or more properly, freedom of expression, in a constitutional sense, means that the government will not arrest you merely for explaining or advocating for an idea. There are areas where this freedom is not offered, such as revealing classified information, threatening violence and soliciting criminal activity. It is linguistic expression that is guaranteed –repeating and disseminating spoken or printed words and ideas – not any form of self-expression, such as with money or disrobing in public. So, if you aren’t outside of the free speech boundaries, what you have is the guarantee that you will not be imprisoned by the government for expressing an idea. That’s it. Here’s what it’s not: It’s not protection from any other ramifications of expressing yourself. It’s not a protection from being fired from your job for expressing yourself (cough) Imus (cough). It’s not a protection from being refused service in a restaurant or being banned from P.T.A. meetings. It’s not protection from an organized boycott. It’s not protection from litigation for slander or any other damage your words might do. It a corporation (or individual) supporting an “ism” with financial contributions Whenever you or anybody else is talking about his freedom of speech being curtailed, be sure that he/she is talking about being punished by the government for expressing an opinion, like the antiwar activists were in 2002-03 Americans speak and behave as if they feel that they are entitled to express themselves in almost any way without ramification. The author repeatedly alludes to Ms. Coulter’s right to express herself. So what. All that means is that she’s guaranteed not to be arrested for advocating an idea not outside the free speech parameter*. It’s not relevant to anything concerning Anne Coulter, who has no right of freedom of expression with me or anybody else who chooses to oppress her self-expression within the law. by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 at 5:21:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Good article
Mary, Thanks for the article. You are correct about Coulter and Hilton. I would like to see Hilton grow up so she could use her wealth and beauty to contribute to making this a better world. She just might do that. Coulter stays alive because she is a radical conservative. If she were a progressive liberal saying those things about conservatives, she would have been destroyed by the corporate media a long time ago. She is not entertaining; she is just a very mean person who is very small in stature. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Jun 30, 2007 at 4:08:38 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
