I don't know who she is, but from that video. she comes across as stupid, ignorant and very annoying. please die already. 

The point of the video is to say that the more outrageous talking heads out there are really just in it for the money, and are not actually that insane. In reality, Coulter is likely far less radical than she makes herself out to be, because, to quote fictional character (stand-in for Al Sharpton) Rollo Goodlove "she just in it for that redneck money."

Dude.  I read that.  I thought it was pretty interesting.  It concerned me enough that I decided to look into it more later.

Then I started reading a few more articles from there.  Damn it, man, it's just a bloody political propaganda site, at least based on the few article I read, unless they're atypical.  Why did you even link that?  What's the point?  Why do people even bother linking articles that aren't from unbiased or non-partisan sites?  No non-zealot is going to trust that kind of thing.  So incredibly annoying to have my time wasted like that.  I even went back and looked at the source links--yep, you guessed it, another propaganda site.

If you've got something trustworthy about serious budget concerns associated with the healthcare bill then I'd like to read them, but not if it's some website for political crackpots.  And believe me, I ABSOLUTELY mean that for both sides of the political spectrum.

1. Reason is a libertarian site. It doesn't belong to one or the other "side" of the political spectrum. They skewer both parties with aplomb.

2. Even if I had linked to www.iloverepublicans.com, what difference would that make? Either argue against the point, or don't bother arguing at all.

Thing is that the people who produce the most content on these issues have agendas in mind and are trying to persuade.  Pretty much all of it is propaganda.  

Libertarians have as much of an agenda as anyone else.  They may not be on "the other side" but they are on a side.  The reach ideological conclusions based on what they believe, and then argue in support of these ideological beliefs.  They shape their conclusions based on what they have as their intention, not changing their intention, based upon what the reality would say.  Like, for example, if someone showed numerous information on how a single-payer run system for healthcare produces superior results to the best intentioned free market solutions, in no way would Reason EVER go with it.  They would just keep looking to try to spin the argument their way.

Of course they have an agenda. Basically anyone who is going to bother to run a political website does. But at least it's an ideological one in their case rather than a partisan one, so their arguments tend to be rather more substantive than the usual reflexive naysaying. They don't change their tune according to whatever is the stupid party line of the day, and they even take apart the Libertarian Party since it's a hopeless mess and they don't feel beholden to it.

The Funny thing about Rachael Maddow is she used to be GREAT.

back around 2006-2007, they had her in a two person political commenting team. 

Her and Pat Buchanon.  The two of them would travel from show to show and debate about stuff in the election....

and the thing was.   They both respected each other, they talked civily, and they seemed to agree 80+% of the time!   When their candiates made a mistake they'd say "McCain looked bad there" or "Obama screwed up" rather then resort to political talking points.

Generally when they did disagree they disagreed only on the effect of something, but were resepctful with each other and argued in a non condescending way.

It was amazing, and consistantly my favorite part of the election coverage.

That's basically how every political commenter is though.   They're all after that political extreme money, and far exagerrating their own positions.  It's all pomp and exageration.

Well except Keith Olbermann.   By all reports he really is that much of a douche.  Just ask every network he's ever worked for.  Hasn't left one station on good terms.

Keith's not the douche, everyone else is.

I mean, for another example of the exaggeration of character.

Take Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh was perfectly fine with voicing himself on family guy, as an even bigger exaggeration of himself... and say things like

"See Bryan, the fact that you'd give a woman credit for anything, proves you aren't a republican."


Rush Limbaugh is also the godfather of Elton Johns son.

A gay couple made Rush Limbaugh their Godfather, the person who would be in control of their children, should they both die... and would be shaping their child's beliefs about their parents. Doesn't really make sense does it? I mean if you were gay, would you want someone taking care of your kid to be teaching their child that they were evil and wrong?

Furthermore, Rush Limbaugh accepted. Wouldn't Radio show rush refuse if he was really that extreme? Saying "If I became their godfather I would be condoning homosexuality and the moral downfall of western civilization" Or something crazy like that?


It's all an act is all most of it is.