Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
I guess you missed "I can deal with that, but not from men or women who look like they try hard to be attractive but just CAN'T."
|
Why does it matter so much to you whether or not the woman's attractive? Many would beg to differ with you as to her attractiveness, promoters included. Why shouldn't they use her looks as a means to set her apart from other faces/voices in the TV-news-guest-commentator business? Enough men and women find her attractive that they tune in to see what she has to say. I guess the proof is in the ratings and the fact networks continue to ask her back.
Quote:
She's an idiot promoter. She doesn't push relevant issues for the sake of relevancy. Her "political/personal opinions" are dramatized ideas to promote herself as a political character.
And I'm not even a Democratic OR a liberal.
|
She's an idiot promoter? What do you mean -- that she promotes idiots? Idiocy? I'm not getting a clear signal from you there. If you mean to say that she's an idiot, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that. The very fact that we're having this conversation is testimony to the fact that she's very good at what she does -- stirring up controversy on various subjects and getting herself noticed. We've noticed. She wins.
As to the relevancy or lack thereof concerning the issues/personal opinions she dramatizes, who is to say they are not relevant? Certainly, it is true that saying John Edwards is a "faggot" is going to stir controversy, but does it raise an irrelevant issue? That word is often (rightly or wrongly) associated with being weak. Is Edwards the guy you want to refer to as "Commander in Chief"? Or is he too much of a girly man for the job? Coulter raised the point in a very controversial way. On one hand, it brings that issue to the limelight. On the other, it virtually guarantees Coulter paid appearances on various TV news shows to defend her statement.