Friday, March 02, 2007
|
|
On Ann Coulter
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
6:54 PM
|
|
Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic.
I guess you could say that Ann loves to shock us, but at this point, who’s shocked? She obviously can’t behave well enough to attend a respectable political gathering. It’s not a lack of intelligence. It’s an indifference to self-control and a preening sort of narcissism that compels her to need the spotlight, even if it’s unflattering.
(For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, here’s audio of her calling John Edwards a “faggot” at CPAC today.)
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
»for some of you to maintain that her problem with homosexuality is the same as God's? I'm astounded and quite frankly, disturbed.«
I can't argue with the disturbed part. Recognizing a problem with oneself is the first step toward solving it.
The Word of God condemns homosexuality and lifts up a man as husband and a woman as wife. Any sexual combo outside of that is condemned. |
|
»God also said that he will forgive whom he will forgive...but we are commanded to forgive all.«
Then you need to fo'give her.
To fo'give doesn't mean to enable. Your kind of fo'giving is meant to enable, to let be.
» We are also to judge not etc. etc.«
The Word of God says that the Saints -- only those truly born again are Saints, the Children of God -- are to judge Righteously -- that is, to discern according to the Word, not our own standards.
You need to quit doing what Satan does -- that is, you need to stop taking verses out of the context of the precepts that define them. |
|
»I wasn't aware that it was part of one's faith with Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, to call people we don't like faggots. «
Good thing, then, tghat Coulter didn't call anybody a "faggot." |
|
»I know you think, "God says I can say this."«
And, here I thought I am the only one inside my head!
» Find me the verse in the Bible where God says, "its OK to call people'faggot'". «
Find me, in Coulter's statement, where she actually called Edwards a "faggot," made a declaratory statement. |
|
I changed my mind, I believe that Ann should apologize for her comment. I think she should say something like the Democrats always say when they issue a faux apology for the egregious things they routinely say:
“I did not call John Edwards a "faggot," if I had called John Edwards a "faggot" then that would have been wrong, but since I did not call John Edwards a "faggot," I don’t feel it is encumbent on me to apologize for calling John Edwards a "faggot." What I said was that I was afraid that I would be hauled off if I used the word "faggot," so I am not going to talk about John Edwards. I did not say that John Edwards is a "faggot." I did not mean to imply that John Edwards is a "faggot. Even if I thought that John Edwards was a "faggot," I would never say "John Edwards is a "faggot," I would say that he is "gay." If anyone was offended because they thought that I called John Edwards a "faggot" then I apologize for them misunderstanding what I said.”
|
|
|
SPOT ON! Excellent post. Succinct, with clarity. A lesson to be gleaned for other bloggers. |
|
Still like Ann - over Rosie any day...
She does like to rile people up. |
|
you: "I got half way through the first paragraph and quickly realized that you had nothing worthwhile to say...so I scrolled through the rest, unread.
Clearly, you're no capable of discussing anything intelligently, and without your own vitriol, so I'm not bothering to read or respond to another post of yours."
well, well...
not only is that weakest cop-out i have yet read on TH, but... talk about the pot calling the kettle black? after I chastize YOU for your insulting, personal invective (none of which I directed toward you), you try to hijack my very argument by saying the same thing about me.
you sound like a sixth-grader.
my argument epitomizes intelligence because i have tried discussing actual issues with you, based on actual logic and example.
sorry lynne, that's just not gonna fly here. i think everyone can easily see through your lies, as well as your inability to face your own undoing.
in the meantime, while you continue to defend the indefensible, consider these pearls of wisdom from someone with class -- straight from TH:
"I'm someone who just a couple of years ago just thought nearly everything Ann did was fantastic. But what I'm realizing - and it's very unattractive - is that while Ann puts on the sexy dress, has the flowing hair, and tries to accentuate femininity - which is all a good thing... she's really no lady on the inside."
"Peggy Noonan, Barbara Olson, Phyllis Schlafly - none of these women would have been caught dead saying these things. They were all formidable women, towers of strength, and tough as nails - but never ceased to be winsome, smiling... and actual - ladies."
perhaps it's time to go find yourself a new hero...
|
|
|
Alot of gay people I know are not leftwingers...thats a huge assumption on your part and you know what they say about ASSumptions. Also, NO one i know thinks Ann is good looking--unless they like women who used to be men. |
|
I wasn't planning to get down in this particular hog wallow but the claims that Coulter was taken out of context are absurd. Those advancing this meme are pathetic, either in their own credulity or in their belief in the credulity of others.
Brief recap. Coulter states that she wanted to talk about John Edwards. However, she says she is at an impasse. Why? Because she dare not use the word faggot for fear of being dragged off to rehab.
So to clarify: Coulter didn't call Edwards a faggot. She only said that she wanted to call him a faggot. Glad we got that straightened out.
Pathetic. |
|
You: "Geez, Solis, you need to get over yourself and get a life!"
you see, that's the problem with you right-wing extremist types. you can't have a simple debate without hurling insults and ultimately demeaning someone. pathetic. no wonder a classless fool like coulter is your hero.
"First of all, I also watched the video and read the transcript. To me, "...turns out you have to go into rehab..." is precisely what the point was! It DOES seem to be "rehab" is the new fad as to how people deal with whatever inappropriate behavior they're caught engaging in these days.""
uhhh.... what...?? even if it were true that that was the real point, how on earth does this, in any way, justify her abhorrent behavior?? so her point then, is NOT that john edwards is a "faggot," but that you cannot call someone a faggot without going to rehab??
oh my god.
that is beyond pathetic. you just took the art of being an apologist to a new low. unfortunately, i don't think anyone's buying it. yeah, right -- so THAT was her point... uh huh, sure.....
weak, lynne. really weak.
you: "Besides, Edwards is so far off the radar at this point. I suspect that if she really wanted to get a jab off at someone, she'd have chosen Hillary or Obama."
exactly -- which proves how unhinged coulter really is. why lose so many of your own fans (see corresponding townhall article) on someone "so far off the radar"?
you wrote: "OR, on second thought, maybe it was a jab at Edwards after his two little "Potty-Mouth Twin" bloggers who took far worse vile and abhorrent shots at all Conservatives and Christians... Ummm!?
And, don't even try the "two wrongs don't' make a right" routine. Doesn't work."
you see, THIS sums up the extremist, hypocritical "christian" right-wing extremist philosphy as much as anything: rather than simply address your grievances intelligently (also as displayed by your typical ad hominem attack on me), you feel it's more appropriate to degenerate dialogue into a tit-for-tat, juvenile rant-forum, where revenge trumps reasoned debate.
this is why coulter appeals to the likes of you. because, like her, you choose ad hominem retorts over a nuanced argument -- as evidenced by your above-mentioned point.
keep in mind that not all "conservatives" act as such, and neither do all "liberals."
--it is up to each one of us how much class we decide to exemplify in our lives. next time, consider taking the high road. you may find many more in agreement with you by doing so.
|
|
If Coulter loved the Will & Grace sitcom, can you really make the case that she hates gay people? That show featured two characters that were gay.
Somebody said that Edwards was better looking than Coulter. I'm not really sure how you can compare the looks of two people of oppposite sex, but I think most people think Ann Coulter is a good looking woman. I don't think that many women find Edwards that handsome...the fact that he's a metrosexual girlieman doesn't help him with the average woman who prefers the traditional alpha male ubersexual. :) |
|
If it's okay to call gays, "faggots", then it should be okay to call blacks, "n*ggers" and women should be referred to as "c*nts" and all straight men are just "d*cks"; Asians are nothing but "chincs", Muslims are just "towelheads", Japs are "slant eyes", Jews are nothing but "kikes", Italians are "wops", Puerto Ricans are "spics", Mexicans are "wetbacks".
Bring on your bigotry revealed in your language. |
|
you wrote, "Problem is, she DIDN'T make a comment about or aimed at Edwards!"
what on earth are you talking about?? of course she did! or does this relate to what your definition of "is" is?? don't be ridiculous. concede the obvious.
you also wrote, "What she said was a humorous reference, that had already been made on Grey's Anatomy..."
you clearly are trying to mispresent the truth yet again -- implying that her comments were "made on grey's anatomy." no such comments were ever made on that show. an actor made comments on the set and went into rehab. you are again bastardizing the truth.
you: "and obviously (if you really pay attention, and actually HEAR what Coulter said, instead of what other people said Coulter said) at how these days, anything one says might just get them sent to "rehab...""
i heard exactly what coulter said, and i even watched it, too. the media has not misrepresented this at all, unlike you.
"That is, UNLESS OF COURSE, you're a liberal such as Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Reid, Franken, Mahr, etc., etc., etc. Then no one even notices the vile, abhorrent things that are said on a daily basis!"
again, even if these "vile, abhorrent" statements were made (which they weren't, as you are yet again grossly exagerrating with your hyperbolic terminology), there are ACTUAL REASONS for such comments -- based on bush's lies, war crimes, torturing, and other horrendous crimes against the state.
but john edwards' crime??
that he and coulter are probably about the same age but he's much better looking than she is.
ultimately, both sides cross the line at times, but this is egregious because it's pointless and particularly offensive -- because of the adolescent name-calling and also because it offends a large segment of our society who have suffered and died because of their natural-born traits.
it's quite a bit different than saying your president is a criminal -- especially when he is.
|
|
i'll gladly explain to you what is wrong with this picture.
when people vehemently and angrily criticize bush, it is for an ACTUAL REASON, i.e., that he killed 655,000 civilians in a war of aggression based on lies. or something like that.
coulter, on the other hand, makes a completely baseless, adolescent -- and outright asinine -- comment that has no basis in reality whatsoever. so, john edwards is gay now? okay... where did THAT come from, aside from her own twisted and disturbed mind?
the masses of humanity despise bush and let it be known in often less-than-diplomatic ways because he kills people indiscriminately, because his policies blatantly favor oil companies, his cronies, etc. all the while exploiting every last shred of dignity or hope for a peaceful and just future the rest of us may yet have.
coulter, on the other hand, spews remarkably absurd comments that a.) have no validity, b.) are pointlessly offensive, and c.) aren't even funny.
THAT is what's wrong with this picture.
|
|
Devastating comeback...except for..."contigent [sic]" and "perso [sic]."
Seems that your outrage and humbrage at being corrected affected your oh so prim and proper perfectionism.
Of course since you are a Liberal I don't have very high expectations of you. |
|
I don't usually find BIlly Crystal that funny, but his depiction of Al Gore as a gay robot made me laugh and laugh. That's because it's true, Gore does seem a lot like a robot that is gay. Billy Crystal is no doubt a big liberal, but he basically called Al Gore a "faggot", although he didn't use that term specifically. I don't think anybody attacked Crystal for that joke.
Saturday Night Live, another very liberal show, makes fun of gay people in many of their skits. Nobody gets hysterical about that. There is a double standard out there for conservatives and liberals. |
|
You're right Lynne!
I love it when someone claiming to be a conservative starts parroting the Democrat/Liberal lines. They must really think that Conservatives are stupid.
What's wrong is that there is a myth which has somehow developed among some conservatives that towing the PC line will help our cause.
I said it before and I repeat it now...It doesn't matter how PC we get, it doesn't matter how carefully Ann censors her speech, we will always be the target of the Paleo-media.
It is like attempting to negotiate with jihadists. No matter who much you give in to their wishes, they still want you dead...unless you convert.
Therefore, they can say ANYTHING no matter how offensive or outrageous and get away with it, but let a Conservative say something mildly offensive and you never hear the end of the Left's whining, moaning, and hypocritical umbrage.
It is like going in to a prize fight with one hand tied behind your back...STUPID.
Well I refuse to do so and Ann has refused to do so. |
|
|
This is in response to marshallguy301. He asserts in a post above that many gays are Republican. That is just absurd. THe vast majority of gays are leftwingers, and close minded to anything that a conservative believes. Since the Republican party opposes gay marriage, it's hard to make the case that a good number of gays support Republicans. |
|
|
Townhall.com would lose at least a third of it's readership. She has the most popular column almost every week. If Dean Barnett thinks Ann Coulter is bad for conservativism and "inapproriate", he should be advocating that Townhall.com drop Ann Coulter's column. It's amusing to me that one worker for Townhall.com in Dean Barnett would be attacking Ann Coulter whose columns generate the most interest in the Townhall website. They should give Dean a chance to do his own column...I would be interested to see what his columns are rated every week. It appears he can only generate any interest at all in his writing when he attacks Ann Coulter, so he shouldn't disapprove of her that much. He needs her big name for his own publicity. |
|
|
I think the argument that Dems call conservatives names so Ann is justified is missing the point. By saying you support Ann, you make the assumption that all gay people are liberal and thus you justify calling them bigoted names. I know tons of gays who vote Republican and feel closer to the conservative side of things...thus when you embrace Ann you are driving away many Rep voters! Its hurting the cause and tarnishing the image of the "family values" party. |
|
...and should anyone even be surprised?
this woman is hate incarnate. she routinely says things so vile, perverse, divisive, evil, and just plain wrong, that it is no longer shocking, it's just... sad.
hopefully this will turn republicans on to the realization that their scariest (and homeliest) cheerleader is not a force for good, but one who continually does whatever it takes to sow the seeds of resentment, ill-will, bigotry, and detestation of one another.
and because of this unending modus operandi, she is a traitor to this country because her main goal is clearly to pit brother against brother in whatever loathsome way she can.
i'm all for free speech, but coulter's particularly ugly brand of hate is antithetical to EVERYTHING this country stands for.
thank god people are finally waking up.
|
|
|
Im a Dem and I love Ann Coulter. She is brave enough to show what the GOP really thinks and says in private. And that she said she supports Mitt?? Even better that he's tied down to the shrew. I guarantee you that people who use or cheer at the word "fagg-t" also use the word "nigg-r" in private. Everytime Mann opens her mouth more and more votes accumulate for the Dems. I hope she is on tv everyday between now and Nov '08. She does more damage to the GOP then we could ever do. Thank you Ann for the 9/11 wives story and the '06 election, and thank you even more for the '08 election!!! |
|
. . . the laughter and applause of the audience says it all.
More honor and dignity from the Family Values party. |
|
|
During the endless recent TV coverage of Anna Nicole Smith somebody was saying that her mother once asked her why she had made up a PR story that she had been born dirt-poor out in the country someplace when in fact she had been born middle-class with a nice suburban home. ANC's answer to her mother was that she had to say whatever would keep her in the news. Same thing, Ann Coulter. |
|
"Extremely articulate people don't use puns..."
"Articulate" people don't say "extremely articulate." To do so is illiterate. It is redundant. You either speak clearly and facilely or you don't.
Actually a literate person takes particular pleasure at making puns. It takes a thorough knowledge of the English language to pull off a particularly good pun.
I find those who fail to appreciate a good pun to be boring, unimaginative, and lacking in intellect.
animalgirlsback writes:
"Name-calling is not stimulating, informative, or humorous over the age of 11."
Regardless of how you think of it, I believe that one could definitely call name calling stimulating. It certainly evokes a reaction it evoked a reaction from you (0-1).
I also believe that one could call it "informative" as it tells one something about the individual using the word, as well as some characteristics of the individual about whom it is being used (0-2).
Lastly I am compelled to say that, on certain occasions, it can be humorous as testified to by the tremendous commercial success of comedians who routinely use them. Individuals like Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, Redd Foxx, Buddy Hackett, Don Rickles, David Brenner, "and a cast of thousands" say otherwise (0-3)
You just stuck out. |
|
Barnett (speaking for all the uptight conservatives out there):
So you think using a slur word on a stage that had just hosted all of the Republican presidential candidates was appropriate? Or close to being appropriate?
Dr. Tesla: Who made you the judge and jury of what is appropriate? Why don't you focus on Bill Mahr's comment that he wished Cheney had been assasinated instead of some trivial joke that Coulter made? Are you scared that gays aren't going to vote for Republicans now that Coulter used the word "faggot" on stage with Republican candidates? I'm pretty sure liberals have the gay vote and the "republicans are bigots" leftwinger vote locked up already.
|
|
This was an email I sent to the uptight Dean Barnett (who is this guy? I've never see a column by him on townhall before tonight). Somebody should tell Dean that stupid, moronic, and idiotic all mean the same thing. He didn't have to use all 3 of them in his brief column:
I don't think you understood Ann Coulter's joke. It was a reference to the show Grey's anatomy, where one of the male characters did call another male character on the show a "faggot", and now he's in rehab. You could say it was a "botched joke" because most people aren't up to date on the friction among the cast of Grey's Anatomy. She never called John Edwards a faggot, as you indicated in your column. Why are there so many uptight conservatives like you that have to beat up on Ann Coulter? Are you just jealous that she sells and you don't? Conservatism will never go anywhere if if the movement is lead by people like you who think any jab at a Democrat is mean or "out of bounds". You are trying to control free speech, something that I thought only liberals did. |
|
|
I think that we should give Ann some credit for not doing these things more often. If I had her job all the Liberal nonsense and threats to America would drive me to insanity. Anyone whom it doesnt turn insane has my upmost respect :P This lady probably screams herself to sleep...JP..but then again..I wouldnt blame her one bit. |
|
Swearing on a bible is used because it aligns with the declaration of independence. In order to affirming your allegiance to the
"Her tired, hate-filled product that she is still peddling doesn't do anyone, any-good, anytime. Quit defending her as a voice of the New Conservative movement."
the hate filled product against Bush does the left a great deal of good and makes them appealing to all the idiots in pretty much the entire world. I’d disagree with your first point.
i see the entire American public as the voice of the conservative movement. Half hate the this movement and half understand and protect it. Some people do not claim to be conservative yet they are simply because the constitution keeps governments in check.
If America was not conservative we would not have a declaration of independence and constitution explaining and dealing with the serious problems of powerful centralized government.
So half of the conservative movement wants its own destruction and renounces its membership.
The reason I call them conservative is because these people assume freedoms that form the basis of American conservatism and limited government.
In that case I see any expression of free speech or campaign is a perfect example of the new -1776 new- conservative movement whether it comes from the mouth of Ann or from the mouth of Nancy.
The only difference is that Anns free actions and words emphasize America and strengthen it while the left emphasizes anti-American "values" and American resentment under the same freedoms made available thanks to the conservative movement at the heart of Americas Revolutionary War. |
|
Hugh,
Ease back on the PC punch you've dunked you're head into. Come up for some air now and then.
Coulter is a phenomena onto herself. Who disagrees? Most lefties blame her on conservatives and always will. Most centrists recognize that she's portrayed as extreme. So what. They also recognize that she doesn't pander to anyone -- unlike Hugh -- and she calls her shots as she sees them.
And let's face it. Edwards hired a bunch of ant-catholic biggots for his campaign staff. When they were revealed to him. He went all spineless. So Edwards is a spineless hairstylist without any balls. Yeah. Coulter used the venacular. So what. And she used both barrels. Gotta love that!
To put her in the same,lame camp as Kramer is way over the top. It' shows your desperation Hugh for a republican win. When you're that desperate to recoup so much of your credibility and party power you mis-judge your targets.
That and I think Hugh is also a tiny bit jealous of Ann.
Please, give it a rest. She didn't say it with a straight face. She was making fun of John "The Hairstylist" Edwards. She was making fun of how people go into rehab at any stupidity -- as if it is a form of redemption.
And the flakes got all hushed and awed. With big round eyes they turned to each other and said, "Oh, that Ann Coulter said a bad, bad word. She dared to use a hurt-word that is offensive to our effeminate and gay brothers and butch sisters who can do no wrong and who are always good and nice and whom we must always say we love. We must always worship at the feet of politeness, even in the face of genocide and beyond the point of censorship. Ann must be a very bad, bad person. In the name of all that is Free and Just the Ann womyn must be censored!!! Let the great censors and dictators of all that is right call her a meany and a bad person. Let us deny her and all people, everywhere the right to say anything that that is politically incorrect. And let's go back to watching the rerun of Gilmore Girls again. |
|
I caught that too. I just was offended by those who are so easily offended.
All of these pretend conservative trolls and the oh so noble "We just don't do that" self-righteous prigs who take such vocal umbrage at what Ann said, then go home and use precisely that kind of language with their friends.
Folks, it doesn't matter what Ann Coulter said, Conservatives will never gain favor with the Paleo-media or the voices of the Left. She could have been as sweet as new milk and someone would have found offense at something she said. You can't give ammo to a group that is already loaded for bear.
They weren't offended by her remark, they were just looking for something, anything to harp on. So what? If not that then they would have found something else.
I am tired of this appeasement attitude we on the Right have apparently adopted. Our Congressmen, what few remain, seldom show any outrage at the horrible things that those on the Left routinely say about the President, even going so far as to run away from him during the election rather than speaking up for him and the policy.
We are rapidly losing the war of ideas because we are so reticent to speak up. The sad fact is, "Nice guys DO finish last." As long as what we say is factual, it is time to remove the kidd gloves and go to town.
Ann is simply showing us the way.
Terrorists are TERRORISTS, Liberals are lying, unpatriotic, enemy sympathizers, or at least enemy enablers, and RINO's are self-important jerks, and just as dumb as the run of the mill Liberal.
Support the troops but not their mission...HAH! What utter dreck!!! |
|
(Ann...First of all, I LOVE YOU! Marry me PLEASE!) Thank God that someone of her intelligence, reputation, & high profile has finally stood up & indirectly said what a lot of us are thinking. To wit...Political Correctness is an abysmal failure & there are many of us who are bloody sick of having our actions / words monitored, especially if it happens to fall on the conservative side of the fence. Here is my main question...where was that jackass Howard Dean a couple of weeks ago when an employeee of John Edwards' election campaign was posting the most vile, disgusting, & repulsive language you ever heard on her anti- Christian blog??? Him, & the rest of his ilk were a million miles away for that one, as were the rest of the S.P. goons. Ann' indirect comments towards Edwards can't hold a birthday cake candle to what A. Marcotte said, but "OH...that's free speech & we can't interfere with that!!! No, no, no!" Ann is a pro-life, conservative who cares about her country, & is probably as fed up with the biased treatment against fellow like-minded people by the far left wing media.
Ann, you have guts, & speaking for many of us...
God love you. |
|
|
|
200 posts NO ONE (at least that I saw while perusing the posts quickly) made the connection betwen Ann's remark and the ABC television show,
Greys's Anatomy! For those of you who do not know, one of the actors, Isaiah Washington(who happens to be black) called one of the other actors, T.R. Knight a "faggot." Washington called him this name because Knight is always late to the set, never prepares for his role, does not memorize his line, and screws up a lot. The remark was made out of frustration, but also happened to be true in that Knight IS gay! As a result the PC police were all over Washington demanding that he go into "gay awareness rehab," do "gay community service," yada, yada, yada.
THIS IS WHAT ANN'S REMARK WAS ABOUT. It was a comment about the PC police and the gay rights lobby forcing everyone to bow down to the way THEY DEEM everyone should behave towards gays. Washington had the right to say what he did towards Knight. The gay rights lobby just should have minded their own business as the comment was between co-workers Washington and Knight. |
|
|
I don't think faggot is the word you should have used. I think effeminate is more accurate. |
|
Good post. Very true, very true. Al Franken can title his book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" and no one bats an eyelash. That was a personal attack against someone, and regardless of how you feel about him, the title of the book is rude, crude and socially unacceptable.
The libs can dish it out, but they can't take it. Hypocrites. |
|
I'm a conservative and I believe in conducting oneself in public in polite fashion and I have no regard for people who wrap their rhetoric in insults . I think it is a complete weakness of character akin to a child who cannot control their immature urges.
Her invictiveness and your subsequent patronizing of it is a weakness of character.
|
|
And I'm tired of hearing her compared to left-wing loonies.
Her invective comes nowhere near that of the Raving Left. And her arguments are logical. Huge difference.
No circular firing squads for me. |
|
Look at all the people, here and elsewhere, going on about what you are supposed to say, supposed to not say, and how to properly feel about all this.
I don’t think I heard Ann call Edwards a faggot at all. She specifically declined to, on the grounds she might be expected to enter rehab for using a naughty word. Of course, the implication is, Edwards might be a faggot, but I’m not sure anyone thinks she really believes it.
In any case, who cares?
The point is, politically correct speech is being lampooned by Ann Coulter, and nearly everyone misses her point because they are too busy having a intestinal cramps over the word “faggot”. Nobody even heard what she really said.
Republicans need to act like Republicans, not self-loathing, America-hating, spineless Democrats. |
|
show some common sense in certain situations. I also think she gave the 'other side' a controversy to fixate on where there was none, thus taking the headlines away from the Presidential hopefuls.
Is it a prima donna complex? I hope not, because I like her biting, caustic humor and, hope she remains at the tip of the spear so to speak.
But incidents like this will cause Republicans to shy away because as we all know (or should) it is the 'moderate undecideds' who will determine the next election (President and Congress) and maybe Ann just ain't their cup o' tea. |
|
I don't see the big deal. When the liberals call OUR president Hitler Or he is worst, nobody jumps up and down. They run with their big mouths all the time.
Maybe she is as paranoid about homosexuals because they are always in our face and I also am sick of it. They can have gay pride parades and if we try to celebrate anything good we are homophodes.
keep it up ANN |
|
Will this get as much play from the right side of the blogoshpere as the comments on HuffPo regarding Cheney's recent brush with death? I should hope so, because in my opinion this is as bad if not worse.
Get off the pot! I mean that both figuratively & literally. I notice you mentioned just the anonymous "Commentators" to Huff & left out the same sentiment as espoused by "a well recognized pundit" like Bill Maher.
What IS bad if not worse is Libs like you seeing the world through the prism of Lefty-Logic and thinking we should all give it a try. AND THAT"S A FACT! So talk to the hand! |
|
|
Fascinating. How quick the left is to utter outrage against one word expressed by Ann Coulter and how slow they are to respond to Peno's lengthy, ranting declarations of Jihad death against Americans. In fact, I didn’t hear them respond to Peno’s situation at all. Peno’s spewings are free speech. He’s tenured at Kent State University with a salary that is supplemented by our tax dollars. What, no rehab for Peno? But Ann Coulter’s speech is condemned and used as a campaign donation tool. Good work, libs. Once again, your misplaced tolerance is going to get all of us killed. |
|
"Any scumball raised in a crack house..."
How rude and crude of you. |
|
I'm SO sick of foul mouthed rude people, and ESPECIALLY sick of those who call themselves conservative doing it. Let the LEFT be the sanctuary of depravity and social disintegration, the right needs to maintain the high moral ground not just in tax philosophy and national defense, but in personal responsibility and civility to others.
Any scum ball raised in a crack house can swear up a storm and be rude and crude. Show some self-respect people and respect for others. Words mean things, and the kind of words you choose speak volumes about your character. |
|
All of this whining about a word.
Okay so:
It's alright for Cindy Sheehan to call President Bush a "Nazi," a "terrorist," and a "murderer."
It's okay for Liberals to wish that Vice President Dick Cheney was killed in the bombing attack.
It's okay to publish a movie depicting the assassination of President Bush,
It's okay to accuse President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of "outing" an active "deep-cover" CIA oprerative.
It's okay to accuse the President of lying to get us into a war for his own personal enrichment, or for revenge.
That's all okay, but let little Anne use the "Faggot" word and all heck breaks loose.
You are a bunch of self-righteous prigs. Ooh, Ooh Mummy, she used the word "faggot" shall we go stone her to death?
Anne, I love you keep it up. If being a homosexual is supposed to be aces with everyone, then why all the big hubbub? Only a hypocrite would see it as an insult.
You guys disgust me.
|
|
To those who think this was a "name calling" episode, I disagree. This was not necessarily a joke aimed at John Edwards but one that is aimed at all liberals who think that rehab is where you belong if you think being gay is immoral or if you don't like any of their other "protected" groups.
A person can't even make a joke about calling someone something that the PC crowd doesn't approve of anymore. If that was her point, then the outrage has proven that she was spot on. I am about to let out a girlish scream of frustration but some liberal would accuse me of inciting hatred against Howard Dean and I would be forced into sensitivity training by Monday morning. I guess I'll just sit here in amazement at how selective some peoples outrage can be. |
|
What is truly interesting is the amount of time and empty retoric being expended over Ms. Coulter's sophmoric comments. Those that eventually applauded her 'joke' should have second thoughts over their actions.
Her tired, hate-filled product that she is still peddling doesn't do anyone, any-good, anytime. Quit defending her as a voice of the New Conservative movement. With her old, infamous "slash-and-burn" lyrics, she only makes honest conservative government that much more difficult to attain. It is not the type of language the GOP should defend, especially as it enters new waters with a possible compromise candidate in 2008.
Shhh, Ms. Coulter. Perhaps she and Michael Moore could run off to a jungle commune in Paraguay for a while? Her fellow citizens have more important things to talk about right now. We could use a break. |
|
THE TERM GAINED ACCEPTABILITY AFTER IT WAS USED FOR THE TITLE OF LARRY KRAMER'S 1978 NOVEL CRITIQUING GAY LIFESTYLES---"FAGGOTS"
SO NOW, ALMOST 30 YEARS LATER, IT'S UNACCEPTABLE? PC NONSENSE. |
|
|
actualy I do not agree with you like i said in my first sentance...i feel that removing this stuff from her books will make her way less effective at bringing in NEW conservatives by keeping her words within our community. the liberals already dont pay attention to reason because it is to hard. so what makes you think pure reason will drag them out any faster if they are already not conservative. reason never gets on the news. faggot does. so ann coulter should use faggot all she wants since she will always have reason and logic on her side. |
|
I agree but it is in your example that she exposes how stupid the populations are in focusing on trivial filling while missing HUGE AND IMPORTANT ISSUES. Anns supporting fluff is irralevant and should be. yet this is what the idiots focus on while they NEVER ARGUE THE MAIN POINT. people that pay attention will realize that there is no legitamate arguement against her point and her arguement prevails without even being debated. in other words her arguement is never tarnished while she is able to insert little fluffs here and there to get her name out there and get people to buy our book and perhaps get people who dont understand in the first place to take a closer look.
AS AMERICANS WE SHOULD BE BEGGING THE MARKETS TO MAKE ANN COULTER WEALTHIER AND WRITE MORE BOOKS!!!! |
|
I take these quick attacks as very serious displays of strength and resolve. Coming from ann coulter I KNOW she means it. I know she has an essay of reasons for calling him a faggot.
the people who complain of homosexuals feelings from these remarks ARE THE PREJUDICE ONES because they assume that the word faggot was meant to inflame, heh, the gay community. no! lets not be prejudice and take the word like we all see it. she is calling JOHN EDWARDS A FAGGOT. and hey lets not be prejudice and admit that john edwards does seem to be one of the flaming, wimpy and anti-war homosexuals the left assumes with prejudice dominates the entire gay population. the gay community is diverse. there are gays that want in the military. these are not the people she is talking about. she is talking about faggots. not all gays are faggots and to assume they are is prejudice in itself. not all faggots are gay.. to my understanding a faggot is defined as a stick..i am also assuming that "stick" is meant to descibe ones wang. therefore i take it as a insult to people who always have their joant up without time to think about anything other that PORK. to me all faggots are disgusting. from government porkers to homosexual or hetro porkers.
you define the term faggot to describe the entire gay community. while those who arnt prejudice assign it to the faggots of a community. and it is because of this that the term faggot cannot be used surgically without offending an entire community. |
|
|
Ann Coulter is a very intelligent woman who would be far more effective if she would not make certain throw-away comemnts in her books and live appearances. For example, in her book "Godless," she did not need to make the comment about the Jersey women in the way she did to advance the very legitimate point that no one can insulate political argument from criticism by claiming victimhood. The fact she did caused discussion about the book to focus on that comment instead of her reasoned arguments about the need for vigorous criminal law enforcement, the immorality of abortion and especially partial birth abortion, the need for reform of our educational institutions, the deliterious effects of losing our Judean-Christian heritage to a godless secularism and the need to examine the merits of intelligent design over Darwinian evolution on scientific grounds. |
|
im willing to guess that hitlery is a lesbian. i wouldnt mind. i care about how she is going to screw my life not someone elses so much. but if she is she should at least come out and say it.
Coulter is not whacked out for thinking she is a lesbian at all.
for all I care she could call every last one of them faggots and i would still support her because she destroys liberal agenda.
and no i do not think her calling a pussay a faggot will hurt the conservative cause. I think it will strengthen it.
hyping the media seems to be a strategy for exposing idiots and getting the conservative point across. i am happy she creates controversy because IT GETS HER IN THE NEWS! the more people that search her on google and read her articles the better!
her thirst for controversy helps her like it would any other shock jock, yet it does a tremndous service to american conservatism. americans benefit the more ann coulter is in the news.
In reply to animalgirlisback:
just because you dont think puns are effective or that name calling isnt funny does not mean others feel the same way. i think it effective in bringing ignorant votes to the democrats so why not ignorant votes to the conservatives instead. i couldnt care less if the people voting conservative had no idea what conservatism even means as long as they vote for the candidate best for america. their intentions mean nothing to me.
ann coulter is not trying to appeal to her supporters when she says these things...she knows that she could run naked up and down the street of her town screaming incoherant babble till someone shot her and her followers would still be conservative. She does not need to gain OUR support. i wont be suprised if she does go insane. liberalism will turn smart conservatives insane. as long as LSD is illegal so should liberal media. it makes you crazy in the head.
but yea name calling and puns do stimulate me. they dont have a serious influence over me but hey they may set the hook in some idiot |
|
|
Don't despair of the business acumen of the conservative side. Yes, we were asleep at the wheel when the 60's radicals took over the school system and we are still paying for that mistake. But as for business, most of the capital raising be accomplished in the U.S. right now is at the $50 million and under level, not at the behemoth levels of Google. There are thousands of small businesses opening up all over the country every year. It's not just about California you know. Don't worry -- conservatives are still, and will always be well represented in the small business arena which has always been, and will continue to be the main engine of economic growth in the U.S. |
|
It turns out that McCain made a smart move not attending the event.
Coulter is a very smart woman. I think she says these outrageous things, though, just for shock value & to boost ratings. It's also to make sure she stays in the news.
Vicious, profane, lewd, personal attacks like the one Coulter engaged in yesterday belong on the left with Michael Moore and Al Franken, not in our party. We're better than that. |
|
|
about why Ann's remarks triggering donations to John Edwards is a bad thing. It's not like it represents money that was otherwise going to a Republican candidate. No, it is probably money that would have gone to Hillary or Da Bomba. It is money down the toilet because America is simply not going to vote for a prissy lawyer who is awkwardly recycling his "Two Carolinas" material into "Two Americas". He can't even carry his home state. Go ahead, send him alot of money. Send me money too if you're just going to throw it away on someone who can't win. |
|
|
|
|
Is the first thing to go when you get infected with the PC cancer your sense of humor? This was intended as a joke. I don't think it was a very funny joke but come on, have we gone so far down the PC gutter that you can't poke fun of people anymore? Maybe the joke was intended to get Howard Dean's outrage as if he hasn't torn down other people. Now that is worth laughing at. |
|
Mr. Barnett is quite offended by Ann's choice of words, yet he does not seem to have any qualms about inferring that Ann is "Idiotic," "Disgusting," "Stupid," and "Moronic."
How do you justify your offensive remarks, Mr. Barnett? Isn't it true that you are simply a closet Liberal? Isn't it true that you actually hate Ann Coulter?
Is it Speech Envy? |
|
Ann has always been an extremely articulate person. So much so, I have always wondered how many people understand her comments either through vocabulary, puns 'intended', deliberate tongue-in-cheek comments, sarcasm intended, etc. Ann-speak requires only the very well educated to understand and appreciate her intent and humor. Sadly, that is not standard in our education and intellectual mindset today.
I find her refreshing, stimulating, informative and humorous.
You go, Ann.
from a respectful fan
|
|
Let America know that Mitt Romney puts his moral weight behind you!
Ann can only help Edwards and the dems in 2008.
Please, all of you, stand behind her!
|
|
Let it rip Ann.Be yourself.Let them handwring.
PC is run amok,those in the fight toss some muck.
Dean B.,Hugh, et al stay out of her way. Yall have more pressing duties. |
|
I agree with the sentiment that it wasn't so much un-PC as it was just plain crude. As a Christian and a fan of lady-likeness, I really can't defend it.
But I will say it would be kind of nice to see a principled liberal pipe up here and say "I will defend to the death Ann's right to make a jerk of herself." Seems like free speech goes out the window when it hurts somebody's widdle feelings.
Did anyone else note the irony of two headlines on Drudge today?
"Howard Dean Demands GOP Candidates Denounce Ann Coulter for Referring to John Edwards as a 'Faggot'..."
and
"Kent State denies ties to jihadi site; Dept head says professor contributed news, isn't creator...
PROF DEFENDS 'RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH'..."
If liberals can tolerate glowing eulogies to terrorists, I can't imagine why simple name-calling would get under their skin. Even the ACLU defends the KKK from time to time. |
|
"Her book sales will probably notch up a point or two as a result of this."
Agreed. After all, porn is a $10 billion/year industry in the US. And I would accord all of the gravitas and merit to her writings that I would to the polticial and social opinions of, say, a Ron Jeremy.
What is interesting, however, is the leadership of the ostensibly serious and respected CPAC inviting her again after last year "raghead" rag. The risk is that people could actually take her for a legitimate spokesperson for the Conservative movement. |
|
Back when I was growing up, being conservative meant taking personal responsibility.
I want to know when being conservative changed to being victims? Whiners?
Why are we whining about being PC?
Liberals are ruining schools. Liberals have overun universities. Liberals took over the MSM.
Yeah well? Where were you the last thirty years? Who let them run the schools? Who let them take over the universities? Was there some magic spell on conservatives preventing them from being teachers and journalists?
As a conservative I live in Silicon Valley doing software.
The conservative world view of liberals is so antiquated it boggles the mind.
The liberals are taking over all the information age companies. Democrats are far wealthier and better capitalists than Republicans. You name an Internet company that is conservative. From Micosoft to Google, from Yahoo! to Netscape the Information Age horizon is owned by liberals.
Thirty years from now our children are going to be bashing liberals for ruining the Internet. All the while liberals today are *doing* the Internet.
As a conservative in Silicon Valley I'm doing it. I'm trying to make a go at starting an Internet company.
Google is in Mountain View, California. Google is hugely profitable. Google is emblematic of what's wrong with conservative world view today. We concentrate too much on being the victim of "f**g*t John Edwards and to little doing.
California is the most fiscally successful state in the Union by far. It is also the most business hostile with its umpteen million environmental and business regulations. So conservatives leave. They give up. Liberals win.
Now, if all this so called "socialism" and "communism" characterizing of liberal ideology and regulations were true, then by golly California should be the poorest state in the Union.
Guess what, its not. It is the *toughest* state in the union to *compete* in as a business and I'm saddened to say that conservatives can't take the heat of competition and leave.
You think Larry Elison is a communist? Bill Gates?
Fact is all this victimhood mentality of liberal bashing is the problem. Liberals already have a huge advantage in dominating the Internet much the same they dominate MSM. Are we going to just hand it to them on a silver platter so our children can feel good bashing them in the years to come?
Question is are we just going to bash liberals about it and be victims? Or are we going to *do* something about it?
Once you start taking personal responsiblity then self-depracting jokes become far more funnier than jokes denagrating other people. Your focus become *your* actions, *your* failures and *your* responsiblities.
Blessed are we who can laugh at ourselves for we shall never cease to be amused.
I don't blame others when clearly the responsiblity for inaction and laziness on my part was the reason for success of others.
I'm appalled and ashamed at all the focus conservatives have on blaming others, ridiculing others and being liberal victims when in fact Jesus commands us to take responsiblity for ourselves first and foremost and if there is any time left over from doing what needs to be done, loving thy enemy.
|
|
|
Go twinkie yerself. What a sorry excuse for a person you must be. |
|
|
Not smart, but otherwise, much ado about nothing. The Left has been calling her a lesbian and a dyke for years, but no one seemed to mind. If anything this will help Edwards. |
|
|
So refreshing to hear you say that names don't matter and that we shouldn't get offended when we hear them. Sticks & stones and all that. I feel much better. Now, please excuse me while I continue to read about Darth Vader Cheney aka Dr Strangelove, the former Senator Macacawitz, and King Chimpus Maximus. No offense, of course. |
|
"Yeah, her calling "Presidential" Candidate John Edwards a faggot may have been over the top, but it was FUNNY!!!
I was there when she said, and I was there for the reaction. It was FUNNY!!
Stop whinning... you people call Bush every name in the book, so you people are ones to talk."
Pretty much sums up where the conservative movement is these days. Not that I needed any reminding. |
|
Ann Coulter is speaking at your church? Which I assume is tax-exempt as a religious institution? Then surely she is going there to speak the gospel and lead her friends in prayer. Otherwise, if your tax-exempt church is featuring a famous partisan political speaker to speak on a political topic, and thereby tacitly encourage a certain vote, then I will be waiting to hear that your church is under audit. Just as was a liberal Episcopal church last year when its pastor spoke against the war in Iraq. Do keep us up to date on that subject.
|
|
I think I read somewhere that Coulter went to law school. If so, that would explain where she learned how to call names without calling names. Haven't you ever seen a movie where the prosecuting attorney in court refers to the defendant as "This foul fiend! This cold-blooded murderer..." knowing full-well that the other attorney will immediately holler "Objection!" and the judge will say "Sustained! Jury is to disregard." But the words spoken hang on the air and remain in the jury's mind.
As I've said many times, Ann Coulter's love of shocking people reminds me of a three year-old girl who has learned that if she raises up her skirt to show her bottom, all the grownups will commence to scream and holler. What a fun trick. |
|
|
If Ann had made that remark, I would have laughed right along with it. Andrew Levy over at Daily Gut even made the point if she had used "gay" or maybe even the shortened version (although I think that's probably pushing it) instead of the word she used, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. But she chose to use the most offensive word possible, because she's Ann Coulter and that's just what she does. |
|
|
When I use my joke comment "If we really must have the first woman president in 2008, I would prefer it were someone other than John Edwards.", am I committing the same sin? (I kill myself sometimes). |
|
Why must we point out liberals' stupidity and use it as an excuse for Ann's? Why can't we just NOT BE STUPID? Is that so hard to ask?
I'm no Bill O'Reilly fan, but he's absolutley right when he always says you don't point to other people's bad behavior to justify yours. Allahpundit over on Hot Air said something similar: "Whenever there's a moral high ground to be lost, you can be sure Ann will be there to lose it." |
|
Yeah, her calling "Presidential" Candidate John Edwards a faggot may have been over the top, but it was FUNNY!!!
I was there when she said, and I was there for the reaction. It was FUNNY!!
Stop whinning... you people call Bush every name in the book, so you people are ones to talk. |
|
I doubt anyone who considers themselves on the fence is going to persuaded by anything Ann says, any more than they would be persuaded by what Michael Moore says. She is speaking to the extremes, and they love her for it. The extreme right loves her because there is much truth in what she says (not everything of course) and the left loves her because they give her reason to be outraged which they do so well.
Maybe I'm wrong, but with two years to go before the election, this is much ado about nothing. |
|
I could care less what Ann has to say as it effects my psychology. It is damn near impossible to offend me. What I do care about is that we live in a political environment where the president wins by a slice. Of course, I think it is beneath anyone, even Ann, to act like such a fool, and it makes that much worse because anything good that might have come from the CPAC meeting is now drowned dead by these profoundly stupid comments.
The main reason this is important and should be condemned is because there is a huge slice of voters out there who will make there decision based on events like this. Do you think nobody heard what Whoopi Goldberg had to say back in 2004 at whatever that Democratic party was did not affect anyone's opinion of the Democratic Party itself? Especially after nobody came out and at the very least said she does not represent the party as a whole. They said nothing, and I remember we conservatives very easily concluded that if nobody condemned her comments, they must agree with them, and we told Middle America so.
Coulter just gave votes to the left. In no way did she bring any votes to the right. That is why her comments are moronic - not witty in the least. |
|
Well said, and in principle, you'll get not argument from me about the need to find a way to reach out to the other side to have valuable, actionable politics. Sadly, I don't see a lot of evidence of that in reality though. I'm sure there are millions of anecdotes that one can refer to in order to support one's position on this, but from my perspective, it seems that I don't see much evidence of liberal reaching out with the olive branch. Case in point is the three or four most recent elections. Every time the Democrates lost, they screamed voter fraud. When the Republicans lost the recent elections, the process of looking inward began and continues here and elsewhere as we try to devine a way for conservatism and republicanism to colalsce into a meaningful and lasting political movement. What were some of the first things we heard from the Left after the recent elections? Talk of subpoena and impeachment. Usinf parliamentary tactics to undermine the President's consitutional right to conduct the war as he sees fit.
You are right that we need to redefine conservatism, but that doesn't mean that we have to worry about offending the fragile egos on the left in the process. |
|
|
Sounds like we got up on the wrong side of the twinkie. Get a life. |
|
|
Bravo comrade; well stated.... |
|
|
Dean, you are a humorless twit!!! |
|
Thank you.
And now we know the nature of who you are, as well.
Thanks for the revelation. I hope in your daily life someone "outs" you for the bigot you are and lets the world know it loud and clear. We need to rid our society of this behavior and we'll be happy to start with you. |
|
Talk is cheap.
Or is it? Rush Limbaugh makes millions, talks to millions everyday. Words matter.
It may surprise you Dan that there are grown ups in the world.
Does Jesus tell us the sword cuts both ways? Most definitely.
That means if someone is gravely offended by PC language then the reverse is also true. PC language is respected by them.
I do not insist the world cater's to me.
I, like most adults, understand that in mixed company my simple use of language can cause damage or create benefit.
For, example you seem to be a very passionate person. You also seem to be a *fighter*. Very well and that is to be respected.
But you seem to believe that your position 1.) represents everyone and 2.) your position represents is the only *valid* one.
Unfortunately many of us conservatives are offended by Ann Coulter outright. I am perfectly within my rights to request, and do so, that Town Hall remove her. However, I also acknowldege that I'm the odd man out here. I do not enjoy politics as sports. In fact, I do not enjoy politics at all but engage in it soley as a repsonsible citizen.
This site is for you Dan. I'm on a single mission. As someone who does not enjoy politics as sports there is no conservative outlet, no conservative politician that I personally can get behind. That Mitt Romney would invite Ann Coulter says it all for me about him.
For the last couple of months I have been trumpeting that the right wing needs more than liberal bashing media if it is to make a difference both internally (what did the Republicans accomplish between 2000-2006) and externally (the next elections).
Pew Research has shown that MSM is more critical of Democrats than Republicans. The conclusion was that Democrats are trying to hold Democrats accountable. Can the Republican media say the same for 2000-2006? Or was liberal bashing 90% of the talk.
Talk is cheap.
If words hurt they can also buy. As a Capitalist I know the power of using PC language in a PC crowd to curry favor cheaply. Using PC language is one of the cheapest olive branches the right has to reach out to the left.
The fact that you are too arrogant to reach out with even the cheapest of overtures to those you do not agree with indicates you, sir, have no interest in cooperating with persons who are not like yourself and disagree with your point of view.
Talk is cheap to manufacture but very rewarding if done correctly. Ann Coulter uses this knowledge to make millions and do nothing. She is not a politician and have to put any of her words into deeds.
The right wing needs to decide as grown up adults whether cooperating with liberals is ever something they *need* to do or *want* to do.
The right wing needs to decide if there is only *one* definition of conservative that's valid where that definition requires a bombastic Ann Coulter to be far more important than the thoughtful William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|
|
I've read a lot of the comments on Hot Air and hear and see a lot of posters defending Ann and saying that the only fault should be put on us ignorant conservatives for not understanding her joke. Well, I must be an ignorant conservative - would someone explain how the joke actually helps our cause (I wanted to post to Hot Air because that is where the most rabid defense is occurring, but they have conveniently shut down registration)? |
|
I don't care what you want to say - say it loud - say it proud. If you want to reveal yourself as a bigot - feel free!
But people will make decisions about those comments in regards to how it reflects their views and whether or not we want people in our government representing us who don't like blacks, gays, women, religion, abortion, etc. That's how politics works.
So, feel free to jump on the band wagon, the world is watching and listening and waiting for you to reveal yourself and the true nature of who you are!
The sooner the better! |
|
"That really helps our chances in 08."
It's amazing that the focus is how it makes one side look or the other, rather than placing the responsibility on 1 person - Ann Coulter.
What difference does it make what party she's with - it doesn't!
This is further evidence of what's wrong with both parties, delegating personal responsibility onto the party rather than the person. We negate all others who are viable as if they have to speak for all the others in their party who are inappropriate, unprofessional or stupid.
It's like telling the class that because Ann Coulter was inappropriate YOU ALL HAVE TO STAY AFTER SCHOOL.
How intelligent is that? It isn't.
Responsibility and Accountability lies at the feet of Ann Coulter - not the Dems, not the Reps - no one but Ann and her bigotry.
Why is this so difficult to assimilate? |
|
Thank you Ann for not being afraid to express your own opinion. I am sick and tired of those who seek to repress our right to say what we want to say, when we want to say it and to whomever we want to say it .
For all those below who "were offended", grow up! It's time to quit running home to momma because little Timmy called me a bad name.
Thanks for all the power over your lives that you give to those of us who are not afraid to say what we want to say just because we might offend you.
If you don't like the subject matter, change the channel.
|
|
"You must be joking, illiterate, rude or just stupid."
Zuh? I was talking about DEAN and MKH. Both, to me, condemned the statement. Calling it "idiotic, disgusting, stupid, and moronic" is pretty freaking condemning to me. NKH called it Ann's bridge too far and said it was nasty. Again, condemning it. Saying someone shouldn't have to go to psych eval for using it, well, I agree with that, it's free speech not a mental disorder. |
|
|
Her comments apparently calling John Edwards a faggot are an affront to faggots everywhere. Gracious Ann, faggots have a tough enough time with their reputations without falsely accusing them of having Johnny in their number. Poor guys! |
|
I don't know, has Malkin ever said anything anti-gay? I read her a lot, I generally like her, and I've never really seen it before. And I'm not heterosexual, but the first thing I thought when Ann said that was "Great job, moron, going on the same stage Guiliani & Romney just stood on and calling Edwards that. That really helps our chances in 08." It has to do with the somewhat-important venue she chose to use it on, and if you're partisan (and I am, I can't stand the Dems) your first thought is naturally going to be "oh, thanks Ann for making us all look bad."
I just think it's taking things to a bit too high of a PC-level when you decide someone not condemning something enough automatically makes them a homophobe. Let's not go crazy now. |
|
"The fact however is that the degree of “out of control and inappropriate” speech coming from the right pales in microscopic in-significance to what comes from the left. Lets not forget that."
This statement has nothing to do with Ann's behavior except to deflect responsibility and accountability.
It matters nothing about what one side or the other is doing outside of THIS SITUATION.
Focus like a laser beam - this situation. Sandbagging and throwing deflective bombs into the conversation about other comments/situations is avoiding responsibility and accountability. |
|
uh, where's the condemnation in Hugh's statement?
"To both you and MKH for having the will to condemn Ann's stupidity."
You must be joking, illiterate, rude or just stupid.
|
|
Hugh doesn't denounce her comments towards homosexuals, merely points out her "indifference to self-control".
Then the link takes you to Malkin's page who states, "an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come." Malkin's more concerned about what a liberal will fling at her than the actual bigotry coming from Ann and what it says about the Republicans on this issue. You'd think someone who is a minority would get that.
Both of these comments by Hugh and Malkin are carefully written so as to side-step the endorsing of "such behavior" while giving a pass to inappropriate comments.
"Well, what she said wasn't nice, you should've called him homosexual".
Yeah, that's better. Thanks for the lesson in tolerance. LOL!
"Ann's remarks were inappropriate toward Mr. Edwards and toward the gay community. Regardless of opinion towards homosexuals, using slurs is never professional and lacks decorum and grace".
THAT'S WHAT THEY BOTH SHOULD'VE SAID!
If nothing else, at least it's revealed what Hugh, Malkin and Ann all think of gays - they're faggots. Nice. |
|
|
Well as a conservative I never warmed up to her much, I don’t find bomb throwing very inviting myself no matter which side of the isle is comes from. The fact however is that the degree of “out of control and inappropriate” speech coming from the right pales in microscopic in-significance to what comes from the left. Lets not forget that. |
|
|
even talking about Edwards? This is a price too high to pay for a non-threat like Edwards. Ann needs impulse control training. |
|
To both you and MKH for having the will to condemn Ann's stupidity. As a gay conservative I will always feel paritally unwanted by this party, and this is incredibly unfortunate because my sexual orientation doesn't automatically make me anymore a fan of liberals than any of you are. I'm for lower taxes, less government, strong national defense, and think global warming is silly. And yet some members of our party seem as determined to make me vote for Democrats as possible.
To clarify here, I didn't agree in 2004 when the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Kerry over Bush solely over the issue of gay marriage. I think you can have an argument over that and a non-bigoted person can oppose it on grounds of tradition. I disagre with them but I don't automatically think being against gay marriage makes them a bigot. But there are still far too many members of the Republican party who have no interest in my support and ARE bigots, and that's unfortunate.
Far too many people look at census numbers, see the relativley low percentage of gay people among the overall pouplation, and think they can afford to offend them. But people need to look at the polling and realize that in the younger generation, there is a far greater tolerance of homosexuality than in any previous generations, and history shows tolerance of a certain group only goes up over time, not down. Smart conservatives need to realize that, 20 years from now, being percieved as anti-gay bigots will be an incredible handicap, and smart guys like David Horowitz have come out and said it before. Ann needs to get a clue and buy a thesaurus. There are so many names you could call John Edwards that I'd be cheering her on for- a trial lawyer, for example! |
|
The ONLY thing that people such as Ann Coulter understands is money.
Town Hall could make a REAL statement by dropping her column for a week, or two. Not permanently, but just enough to show her that her actions have consequences.
|
|
|
it's unfortunate that liberal women who are smart are, well, well there is Hillary. Anyway the attractive ones are Pam Anderson and the Dixie Chicks but then they're not very, well there is Susan Sarandon. And John Edwards. |
|
I can't help but laugh at the rather juvenile defense of Ann Coulter and in other posts Michelle Malkin. Both make some pretty sweeping statements about liberals and democrats and many are over the top.
Their first goal is to make money - and leading some sophomoric men by the nose with a flip of the hair or simpish behavior works pretty well for them.
If Janet Reno were to all of a sudden become a hard core conservative going on the talk circuit I doubt she would get the following that Ann or Michelle do simply because she isn't deemed "attractive" enough.
DB makes good points - this was unnecessary and not helpful. |
|
...for John Edwards. Sycophant, parasite, power-luster, panderer, ambulance-chaser, conniving, disingenuous, dishonest, demagogic, lying -- these are a few terms that come to mind. You should be criticizing Coulter for letting Edwards off way to easy.
|
|
Ann's the only high profile republican with gonads.
No one seems to be asking, or maybe I missed his coming out, about John Edwards.
Frankly, liberals have the vulgar language debate all sown up. Why is the word 'faggot' worse than the various variations on the 'f' word constantly in use by liberals? |
|
Ann showed no class. If she wants to be on our team then she should have class. And manners. All this other umbrage and high dudgeon about "pomposity of the right" and "throwing Coulter under the bus" is misplaced.
There is a difference between funny and Al Franken. There is wit and there is a slap in the face. Being the loud, sloppy guy at the party embarasses everyone. One drink too many does the trick. Ann went overboard. We should admit it.
She is an entertainer but she also has razor-sharp, humorous observations about the left. They are funny because they are true. However, if you always said the truth when someone asks "How do I look?" you would have few friends and you would be isolated from polite society.
The reason we should condemn this particular action is to show the Left how to act right. They don't know how. It's how they were reared, I guess. |
|
Geez folks; we all take a position on the news as it unfolds in "real time" here in the blogosphere. We have a few hosts here at this site and they post their views on the news as it happens; in real time. Dean is a highly educated person with his own set of values and principles; Dean's writings are influenced by his values and principles. I'm a Conservative Republican for very obvious reasons; this ideology is simply the best political option I have for my own set of values and principles. This ideology is not a perfect match for me, but it is the best option I have. What are we really doing here folks; we are expressing ourselves, that's about it; Dean gives us the opportunity to express ourselves; for that we should be grateful.
Ann Coulter is a "star" in the Conservative movement, that is a fact. On occasion, Ann displays behavior that is outside of my own personal ideology; on occasion, Ann does not represent my view of Conservatism. I'm all for the fight folks; I grew up with (3) older brothers in a home where fist fights were almost a daily event. I have worked in the Construction industry for the past 34 years; I'm just fine with some blood on my hands. The GOP had better fight back against Liberalism, or Liberalism will rewrite the Constitution and America as we know it will fade away entirely; America will become much like what we see in Europe today. But fight back with a different set of standards that those on display by the radical left. Fight back with integrity & principled behavior, but fight back we will. If I see a Liberal trashing my flag or my brothers & sisters serving me in our armed forces, fight back I will; that I can guarantee. |
|
You know I like to read or listen to what Ann has to say. However, I think she went to far. I think the news media will have a field day with her remarks. Name calling on either side is what it is..ugly. Moreover, what does it do for our party? Good or bad?
I think it is very bad.
Do we want her to be the focus or the message of the conservative party?
Please Ann for the sake of the good party, hold back...I am begging you.
Veronica in NC |
|
All the hand-wringing. Hey. If you want to feel bad (it's your choice) because Ann said something you find "questionable;" and looking down from your pedestal of superior purity and righteousness you have a need to self-identify with her and do the guilt trip and self-flagellation thing; by all means enjoy.
But please don't drag the entire Right into the process. Many of us think this is an incredibly insignificant episode made less so only by the compulsion of some to break out the sack cloth and ashes, and convene a loud chorus of mea culpas. Somewhere on the Left, wiser heads are having a good laugh over the self-destructive behavior - and I do NOT mean Ann's. |
|
|
whats the big deal,its okay for liberals to poke fun or make jokes about conservatives butnot for conservatives to make jokes about liberals,its just a nother example of liberal bias in the drive by media, ann coulter is a great woman,she just speaks whats really on her mind and says the truth nad it makes liberals mad |
|
Let's all agree. The left is right. Any Right winger who opens his/her mouth on any subject must be immediately castigated and flayed alive.
Haven't any of you noticed the lefties circling the wagons around Reps and Sens who have committed such ILLEGAL acts as fraud, failure to report an accident which resulted in the loss of a young womans life, bribery, and others.
How many times do we get to listen to "Sheets" Byrd lambast "white n***ers" in the well of the senate without one word condemning his actions?
Once again we conspire with the left to destroy our own, Newt, Dick Armey, Rush, even Bob Dole, a true American war hero, has been put down by the republicans in order to "get along" with the Dems.
Keep up the good work, Ann. Someone must make the attempt to wake up the GOP. |
|
|
The gloves are off. Big deal... |
|
To those of you who don't think she's actually calling Edwards 'faggot', if I say:
I was going to talk about Guliani, but I'll get punished if I use the word 'adulterer', so I can't really talk about him.
Did I just call Guliani an adulterer?
If you think not, then you've got an infantile grasp of language. |
|
Oh please--who are you calling bigot? For that matter what is a bigot?
Ohooo you bigot you. Another finger in the eye. Define it--and if I fit your definition--I'll own it--otherwise, nice pejorative that reflects on you and no one else. |
|
And get a sense of humor while you're at it. Hobknobbing with the high & mighting, has you waving your pinkie while drinking your tea.
Big, freakin' deal! |
|
It seems like whenever the GOP or anyone associated does anything bad, they have to bring up things that the left did. I'm the kind of guy that takes responsiblity for his actions and it kind of sickens me to see so much scapegoating.
If you're a bigot, then just embrace it, don't blame someone else. That's your heritage, that's your lack of worldview, that's your inability to empathize with other human beings because of your lack of experience with different kinds of people.
That's why these stupid lefty's are all housed in universities, it's because being there they meet new and different groups of people. Along the way they realize that generally the people of any class, creed, sexuality, race, sexual preference, and religion...all want the same thing. To be happy.
Now I guess as GOP members we have to ask ourselves...who should we allow to be happy? |
|
|
|
I've spoken my last on this subject, I knew that I shouldn't have even bothered perusing the thread.
But why all the pomposity?
What electoral advantage does the GOP acquire from all this pomposity?
Why all the sham outrage?
What electoral advantage does the GOP acquire from all this sham outrage?
Why this need to affect an angelic disposition?
Again, what electoral advantage does the GOP acquire from this bizarre affectation?
Why are we even giving this matter a second thought, and why do some of us delude themselves that such second thoughts reflect positively on our "decency?"
Again, what electoral advantage flows from any of this?
Someone earlier remarked that Cheney was in the audience. That's interesting. So should Coulter have refrained from broaching a verboten subject, declared verboten by the Democrats, just to avoid what, some momentary awkwardness on the part of the VP. And of course, that's assuming that the man from Wyoming is such a wallflower that he actually would be bothered by Coulter's comment.
PERHAPS, just perhaps, Cheney knew that she was trying to cross lines, drawn by Democrats, from which the Democrats have gathered great political advantage. Especially on the campuses.
Is the GOP a party for free speech?
Is the GOP against speech codes on universities, or for them?
Is the GOP going to emulate the various lefty groups, and raise political correctness to an absolute value?
Are we going to resist the Left, or emulate them?
George W. Bush wants to emulate them in many ways. Which is why we lost both houses in an absolute electoral shellacking.
Are you an echo of the Democrats? Or are you the Grand Old Party, the party of Lincoln, of Teddy Roosevelt, of Coolidge, of Eisenhower and Reagan?
It's your choice.
Finis! |
|
|
Oh I forgot, socialism and its more evil cousin, communism has worked out so well. |
|
Her true problem is the pressure to be hilarious constantly.
THAT'S it.
Johnny Carson wasn't perfect every night, nor was every single one of Bob Hope's jokes funny?
Mistakes are made.
But there exists this deep hankering within Republican opinion shapers for media respectability.
Dean Barnett literally oozes with it. He's longing for it.
He's not the only one of course.
They ALL crave it. They know, deep inside, that they'll NEVER get it. Cronkite would never accept them. Ted Koppel isn't going to ever deem then a peer. Brokaw may occasionally talk to them, but they'll never get the acceptance conferred only to lefty pundits. Sure, occasionally they'll acquire the veneer, sure, occasionally, they'll think they're actually getting that holy grail the media has to offer, respectability. But it's only a gloss, it's only a mirage.
That's what this is all about.
There isn't anybody out there who seriously thinks Coulter drives votes one way or the other.
There's other forces and motives throughout.
And that's why it's a fraud, it's a sham, freighted with falsehood, loaded with lies.
|
|
|
Nope, they would just put out Jimmy Carter, and Michael Moore. |
|
I was going to comment on Ann Coulter but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word c#nt.
|
|
Should come as no surprise that I like Hugh and Dean, but that doesn’t mean agreement in everything. God I hope not!
And perhaps it's a venal pleasure, but I like it from time to time that Coulter pokes my disliked personalities in the eye from time-to-time. Lord knows they poke their fingers in my eyes often enough.
Yea, I know this limits my moral standing for, ever so slightly, stating my case on decency, but then I can least poke my finger, and ask who is doing the judging.
|
|
The Vice President, whose daughter is gay (just to remind those who think God created homsexuals to punish them) was in that esteemed audience.
The woman who called 9/11 widows "harpies" who "relished" their husband's deaths was the key speaker before the Vice President and hopeful Republican candidates.
Even the left wouldn't put Gore Vidal on to that kind of assemblage.
And to trot out the word "faggot" in any context with that kind of group shows Coulter's fundamental sociopathology. She's clearly mental and you guys call her witty.
Yet again, the genetic corruption of the modern conservative party is revealed to the world.
And Mitt Romney just shot himself in the foot.
Meanwhile, privatization as run by another Haliburton crony has turned our troops' hospital into a shamful spectacle. And reduced the President into more displays of his incompetence.
Please, more essays about the hateful left.
Victory! |
|
This is just like the Rush Limbaugh fracas.
Where FALSEHOODS were used to banish Limbaugh from ESPN.
It wasn't the truth of what he said, it was the lies, the insinuations, the attributions.
And it's that, the falsehood, and from some, DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD, that's going to be used to jin up some faux controversy. But usually, faux controversies often have REAL results.
Go ask Limbaugh.
Go ask Gingrich too. For the Democrats brought false and endless ethical accusations against him to drive him from office.
And instead of a robust defense, the party displayed the same attitude that we've seen on this thread. Namely, she is "more trouble than she's worth," she's a "distraction," she's preventing "discussion of the agenda" and of course, the most toxic for increasingly a party of wimps, "she's polarizing."
That's the recipe the Dems used to purge the most effective Congressional Republican in the last half century.
Do you really think we would have all those earmark problems with Gingrich? Do you really think the party would have lost its way with Gingrich as Speaker?
But hey, I'm nasty, I'm not being civil, I'm being unfriendly, {we've been informed it even has international consequences...}, so go ahead, throw her under the bus.
Some of us are trying our level best to prevent the face of the Republican party becoming as listless, as complacent and as indolent as Andy Card. But we're not getting much help here.
This is all about some quest for respectability from a media that detests you.
It's foolish, it's a vain, and for some, a VAINGLORIOUS quest. And it isn't going to work.
You threw Gingrich under the bus. You put that "behind you." Did it work?
Sure, get rid of Coulter.
Whatever you would be hoping to accomplish by tossing her under the bus, to the glee of your political opponents, wouldn't be accomplished.
The only thing left is the FIRM CONVICTION in the left that you're are weak-minded, and easily dictated to.
|
|
You all should think twice about being so quick to throw Coulter under the bus for an off-the-cuff comment. This gets us in trouble over and over again. Leftists say and doo he most awful things and there is no shortage of wagon-circling, rationalizing and defending. A conservative makes an off-color comment and other conservatives are ready to throw her to the leftist wolves. When will we learn to stand behind our people the way leftists stand behind theirs?
Nobody is without sin. By sacrificing prominent conservative voices when they violate the politically-correct rules set by the other side (which they don't follow themselves), we play right into their hand.
|
|
|
|
I never congratulated anyone for being a pompous bore.
That would be Barnett you're thinking about. W
But again, this is the type of lamentation that flows from sloppy thinking, and what's more SLOPPY COMPARISONS AND SLOPPY ANALOGIES.
What goes on at DU and Kos defies description. And anyone who seriously suggests that what Coulter said is any way comparable to the DAILY FARE found at Kos is engaged in DELIBERATE bad faith.
And I refuse to break lances with men engaged in argumentative bad faith.
There is much here that is a pose, a political fashion statement.
Many here, like Mechanical Eye for instance, are strutting down the blogosphere catwalk, parading their pomposity, displaying their "decency" and in short, walking without any clothes on, like the Emperor long before them.
And I refuse to have anything to do with it.
There's not a man here who is truly bothered or outraged by what Coulter said.
Not a one of them.
Those that say that they are, are frauds.
There are to be sure, things to be outraged about. But this comment by her, isn't one of them.
And you know that it's not, BECAUSE of the way it's been so BLATANTLY mischaracterized. If the statement was as bad as they say it is, then a truthful rendition would be damning.
There wouldn't be any need to falsey describe it.
And their use of falsehood in describing her comment damns them too, for the falsehood is necessary to try to jin up this faux outrage.
What's TRULY outrageous is that a man with so scanty a resume, with so little character and strength, such as the trial lawyer from North Carolina for instance, would DARE, DARE TO OFFER HIMSELF TO the greatest nation in history, as the leader thereof.
If there's cause for outrage, THERE IT IS.
|
|
In my own paper Jeff Kent was called a racist above the fold on the sports page--over the top? or just standard fare for polite media? Is calling someone hypothetically--if that--a faggot, worse than throwing the weight of received wisdom--read news-paper--behind the term racist? Not!
So spare me all your faux hand wringing. The over-the-topness of Ann is standard fare for MSM. It's a daily ulcer. So yea, Ann is over the top, but I know where she got it from. Oh yea, and she doesn't hide behind the curtain of "objectivity." |
|
|
Ann could probably buy a new Lexus with all the money she's saved using this kind of free publicity, more like hysteria. |
|
It was an idea of the old boy network that you tendered trust to get it. It was precisely that attitude that led to the Cambridge 5 spy ring. Nobody properly vetted them, for it was simply assumed that men from Cambridge couldn't possibly betray merry old England.
Allies?
Does the quest for consensus drive policy, or does the quest for national security? Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive by the way, but this isn't the time to put sham consensus and sham alliances before closing with our enemies and utterly destroying them.
Dissing?
You've taken a thread about the appropriateness of Ann Coulter's comments and used that to segue to a broader theme, AMERICA'S relationship with the world.
That's strange, for most of the world doesn't share the elite's new and novel enthusiasm for homosexual courtship. Haven't you noticed that? Most of the world isn't like the club scene in Amsterdam, or the Bay Area.
The world has had a rather firm understanding of what marriage has always been about.
That's not a controversial statement. WHAT IS controversial is the modern attempt to overturn that time-tested, universal firm conclusion.
Civility, politeness?
Sure, there are times and places for civility. But not always.
The greatest American Catholic theologian was a guy named John Courtney Murray, and he said that "one should never be rude, EXCEPT INTENTIONALLY!"
The Left has become so lame that they can't even be curt with our muslim enemies. Men mutilate beautiful young girls, and the Left is so weak in spirit that they can't even find the humanity to denounce such monsters as monsters. Iran WEEKLY professes genocidal and supremacist goals. Where are your polite Europeans during all of that?
Where are the Frenchmen? Oh, that's right, they're trying their level best to make sure Americans don't know about the gang rapes, the cars burning by the hundreds every week. Yea, there's your French for ya. France today would make Murat weep, {Gen. Joachim Murat, leader of the Napoleonic cavalry, commander of the rear guard during the retreat from Moscow}.
Anyone who knows me knows that I'm civil.
But I refuse to allow civility to become a fetish, and to cloud a robust collision of idea.
There's been much of this "we're offended" of late, from American men.
There's this whining, and squalid pleading latent through all of it.
It's not even an argument, it's a "you're being mean to me" kind of thing.
It's not a healthy development.
It's not the type of thing one would be apt to hear from a Doc Holliday, from a Wyatt Earp, from an Audie Murphy, from a Robin Olds.
Yes, we need allies, but real allies, not sham, not fake, not fraudulent, not allies only on paper, but in the field.
We've friends, such as the Australians for instance.
America could use some real friends, but we don't need any more wimps, domestically or internationally. The world has quite enough of them.
And that's why the hours are darkening.
|
|
Dear Dean,
You can't even carry her garter belt. Another girly-man reaction. How did you ever get on these pages--affirmative action at work.A pro-abortion weasel. |
|
|
I know this because the Bible tells me so. The Bible is never wrong. Everything it says is the Inspired Word of God. If you disobey God, you cannot be saved. This is why I am not homosexual. It is also why I do not eat ham sandwiches, because that is forbidden. It is also why I am careful about the manner in which I stone my slaves. If you eat ham sandwiches or spill your seed with other men, you are a sinner. See Leviticus. |
|
"And Barnett RAN OUT THERE in some effeminate tizzy, shrieking of the horrors, the horrors of her statement."
You have to give respect to get it. Or haven't you noticed?
Or maybe you think the right wing of this country can go it alone, without liberals, without the center of America under the influence of liberals, without anyone, eh? Tough guy, eh? No pansy diplomacy, eh? And to think that Reagan met and talked with Gorbachav! No picking and choosing your battles, eh? Fight 'um all now. Wooo hoo!
Who does the right wing give respect to these days?
Britian?
France?
The U.N.?
Liberal Americans?
If America has to go to war with Iran, who will our allies be? Ann Coulter has pretty much dissed everyone. The only reason she hasn't insulted and disrespected everyone is because she wants to leave a few for tomorrow.
You going to personally fight the world with 150 Million liberal hands tied behind the U.S. back?
In case you haven't notice, dissing everybody in the world hasn't exactly gotten the Bush administration anywhere.
But keep on loving Ann Coulter. Guaranteed to be the destruction of the Republican party. Once all the bridges have been burned with everyone on this planet I suspect the right wing will start burning each other.
Soon you will be the front line.
The arrogance of the right wing is that they think they can take on the entire world, liberals, French, U.N. everyone. P**s everyone off because we're morally superior.
Well that story has a predictable ending.
There was a time when conservatives understood the need for politeness.
|
|
We congratulated ourselves just a few days ago on how the right-blogosphere refrain from using all those potty-mouth words the lefties use.
Now we flood the zone with excuses for calling opponents faggots, congratulating Ms. Coulter for using potty words for being so un-P.C.
Again,
Pathetic.
DU
|
|
He weekly gets Dave Drier on the air...............??????????????????????
Why?
We've heard just about everything that Drier has to say, and we can pretty well guess what Drier will have to offer on any issue under the sun. He's stale, he's old news.
Who else does he get there?
The Beltway Boys.
Now, I don't mind the Beltway Boys, {except Barnes, who can do too good a job imitating Captain Obvious on occasion...}, but do they need to be trotted out on a weekly basis. Even when nothing much is happening politically?????????
Steyn? Now Steyn GETS TOO LITTLE air time. He should get more.
Who else? Oh yea, Lileks. Now Lileks is a mixed bag, sometimes he's ON! But other times, like when he's speaking of his hummels for instance, ......... who really gives a damn?
Who?
He needs some new blood.
Now I appreciate his airing of Professor Barnett's views, THOUGH I DEPLORE how he refused to offer countervailing opinions on those important subjects.
But taking that in depth exploration as an example, why doesn't he do the same for Bat Yeor, of EURABIAN fame?
Why not discuss matters with Dr. Andrew Bostom?
Why not get into a SERIOUS comparison of 'Nam and Iraq with a Lewis Sorley or a VDH?
Hewitt is in a rut, and he needs to break out.
That Naval Academy guy too, gets far too much air time.
He's another one, another bit of evidence of Hewitt's rut. |
|
Remember, IT WAS BARNETT who triggered this thread, trying to earn some plaudits at Coulter's expense.
Hewitt's website isn't eager to FULLY EXPLORE the history of jihad, the history of dhimmitude and the koranic foundations of modern jihadist behavior.
THAT'S NOT an issue likely to be explored here.
This website subscribes to the "radical" narrative. To wit, that our enemies ARE NOT MAINSTREAM muslims, that they're "radical" muslims driven by various root causes to embrace violent behavior.
Of course, the PENTAGON recently conducted an in depth study on this very topic, and they sadly concluded that our enemies are NOT marginal, are NOT radical, and ARE NOT inconsistent with the long tenets and teachings of islam.
Hewitt isn't going to interview a Spencer.
He isn't going to interview an Andrew Bostom, who wrote THE HISTORY OF JIHAD.
He isn't going to interview a Bat Yeor, who broke original research into dhimmi history.
THOSE are stories Hewitt and Barnett aren't interested in telling. For they raise too many questions, they raise too many qualms, they raise too many problems.
Those questions are simply too serious to be handled by this website and the radio show.
Much better to take off and misrepresent what Coulter said. Yea, that's the ticket.
That'll keep everybody fat, dumb and stupid.
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more. Everytime I hear someone on our side with this faux outrage I literally gag. OH, the stupidity of eating our own. I read: "Coulter said something outrageous again!" When I go and check it out in context it was fine. |
|
|
Whether she meant to call him a faggot is irrelevant. She is entertainment and she knows it. Her book sales will probably notch up a point or two as a result of this. Her business strategy is pure genius in its simplicity. She offends -- the hot house orchids of the left screech in outrage, and she sells another 100,000 books. I wouldn't vote for her to public office, and if I were running for office I'd hesitate to have my picture taken with her, but as a businesswoman, you can't argue against her formula for success. |
|
|
Are you trying to put things in persceptive? |
|
|
You are out of your mind. A real even with our Vice-President the subject of a real assassination attempt isn't even on the same page as a hypothetical, tasteless joke. Are you utterly devoid of discernment? |
|
|
...that Ann's getting to be more trouble than she's worth...but I will say that there's a high-end dog-gift store in Seattle named after her. |
|
Say everyone, what's the latest on Anna Nicole Smith? How about Brittney?
It's like watching a train wreak. Seventy some odd comments on what Coulter said about the Silky Pony and nothing in the Spencer vs. D'Souza thread. I guess something as mundane as the threat of radical Islam isn't much of a priority. |
|
|
Is Ann over the top? yea, but then when ever I have the misfortune to put on ABC nightly, dumb, I am an audiance watching over-the-top, without any, any, self awareness. Who's the guy on HBO? Can we call him Mr. overthetop, notstop, 24/7? |
|
Coulter USED a question about Edwards as a contrivance to speak a verboten word.
She did it to DELIBERATELY cross a line that has been drawn by men oozing hostility to the Judea-Christian foundations of the West.
She did it to raise some hackles, she did it to rile up the complacent who run with the herd.
She didn't brand him a sodomite, she did nothing of the sort. She used the question to cross lines drawn by Democrats.
And Barnett RAN OUT THERE in some effeminate tizzy, shrieking of the horrors, the horrors of her statement.
It's as LINDA FROM WHITTIER observed, the "POMPOUSNESS" of many on this thread, {only following of course, Hewitt's sidekick in theatrics, Barnett} is SICKENING.
Are you men?
Are you Americans?
Or are you post-moderns from the Valley?
|
|
|
She DID NOT say Edwards was a faggot. Her comment was something to the effect that if she called him that, the PC police would cart her off to rehab! The vast majority of the commenters here are so self-righteously pompous, who needs the lefties’ PC Police, we have the HOLIER than THOU bunch. All of you remind me of Chicken-Little! OH NO! OH NO! Ann Coulter made a very valid point but if we take it out of context it sounds soooo nasty. Sniff sniff, eeeeek, You all are so worried that someone, might think that, there is a whiff of homophobia, that you over react and look so foolish. While any reasonable person would just agree that, yeah, the PC Police would be called You look far worse, by refusing to see the truth. |
|
KGK writes: Friday, March, 02, 2007 7:49 PM
Homaosexual acceptance
***Just a thought. Perhaps though Ann was over the top here, perhaps she was expressing frustration with the PC effort by militant gay lobbying groups, the DNC, and other cultural groups to force homosexuality on the majority of this nation who still has some views other than the Left, Hollywood, and University elites. Or she was just being inane. But, do not just cast off the view that many Americans have been overwhelmed with PC nonsense including the acceptance of the homosexual life style as equal with eons of heterosexual marriage claims. And not showing or telling our public or our youth the exact nature of the lifestyle and the sex styles which would really shock them!***
Oh, I am SOOO sorry that some of us GLBT types are actually in the Republican Party! Did I miss the memo that party membership was restricted to approved Christian church rosters?? Also, what "lifestyle" am I trying to force on you, other then the right to not have the s*** kicked out of me at work?? |
|
|
Yes, you are both correct, but is she not merely the image in the mirror of our leftist elitists? No doubt that two wrongs don't make a right, but... |
|
Many want to run with the herd, and who is directing the herd, pray tell?
The media, academia, Washington elites, New York socialites, freakshows in Hollywood, THOSE are the people DICTATING what you consider offensive or not, what YOU consider appropriate or not.
It's gotten so bad, that many of you AREN'T EVEN AWARE anymore that you are PAROTTING what your political, cultural and intellectual opponents WANT you to say, want you to think, want you to feel.
They are conditioning you, your children, your neighbors, your workplaces, your schools and your private clubs.
And instead of being outraged, YOU'RE livid with a woman who REFUSES to hew to the modern party line.
She refuses to run with the herd.
That's what this is all about.
She simply contrived a reason to say a word that your political opponents deemed verboten. She did it to break through this crushing web of conformity and thought control.
She did it for you, you twits.
And instead of understanding the level that she's at, you rush off, like some fricken delicate debutante, shrieking in horror, horror, "Oh the humanity...!" And of course, it's all SO FAKE, SO FRAUDULENT, SO ERSATZ, SO CONTRIVED. It's that fraudulent outrage that's the most NAUESEATING aspect of this tempest in Barnett's teapot.
And who is Barnett kidding? He isn't outraged, he's simply pretending to be, and we're all pretending too, we're pretending that he IS outraged, when we know he's not. We're pretending that she stepped across a line that any of us really gives two damns about.
But what we're really pretending is that we're UNAWARE of who drew that line, {and other lines...} AND WHY they drew that line
So in short, DEMOCRATS DRAW LINES for Conservatives, and Barnett leads the chorus in reciting the mantra that ALL OF US MUST RESPECT that line.
It's the political equivalent of assuming the lotus position and chanting: "oooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."
You're running with the herd.
Congratulations! |
|
How sad, ungracious and un-Christian so much of this is. Coulter made a bad choice here, that's obvious. But for some of you to maintain that her problem with homosexuality is the same as God's? I'm astounded and quite frankly, disturbed. I wasn't aware that the Bible took to calling homosexuals derogatory names. Where is that? I must look it up.
Coulter likes making headlines--she's good at it--and it's unfortunate. |
|
...un-Reagan-like.
So many of those folks at CPAC still hold the Gipper as the gold standard, or say they do. I do, too, I guess. Be honest, can you imagine the old guy ever...ever...using that word at a public appearance? I have trouble imagining him using it in private. Imagining him doing it at something like this is just bizarre. |
|
God also said that he will forgive whom he will forgive but we are commanded to forgive all. We are also to judge not etc. etc.
I stand by my remarks. Coulter's words were out of line and uneccesary to make her point. I'll go so far as to say that they were not only unkind but unChristlike. |
|
If you examine her as a right pundit then you might prefer that she be reflective enough to tone her rhetoric down (or even think the way she does), but on the other hand if she is more a Colbert, entertainer, then her outrageousness is just part of the show.
Is she saying what conservatives wish they could say in a whimsical way--not serious (the unutterable joke). No doubt she is not George Will, but she sure as hell is a lot more entertaining. But then that is the problem--she entertains, but can't say so because that would strip her (no projection here, but I wouldn't blame myself if I did, but Mrs. Diomedes might) of her facade and appeal as being the lady that punches them in the eye.
Is she merely crass or something we don’t admit, vulgar humor.
What to do? |
|
Terrible sentiment. I agree with Dean and GenXdad as they said it best above, IMO.
Enough. It's long past time to metaphorically throw this woman under the bus. No more 'events' for Ann. I don't care how well she writes. She's a detriment to us politically and I can certainly understand how people could draw conclusions over this episode. But this is about more than perceptions. And it's not about political correctness either. It's about being and acting better. Ann's not even making an effort towards that end.
|
|
What's pathetic is the celerity displayed by Conservatives to banish Coulter from their midst.
Conservatives have reacted with more horror than probably the denizens of the Village and San Francisco.
I mean, WHO REALLY CARES what she branded Edwards' behavior like? Edwards HAS BEEN ACTING WIMPY, and that's a fact.
She's a woman, and she gave you all a feel for the disdain she holds for him.
This reminds me of Norquist going up there and crying about muslim immigrants, comparing them to his sainted scandinavian forefathers. It was all too much for Malkin, who blasted him as sickening and fraudulent. It was others who pointed out the number of foreigners dropping dollars into Norquist's coffers.
This is a ridiculous spasm, increasingly par for the course from Barnett.
It's bad enough that a STULTIFYING level of crushing conformity exists in the media, on our universities, but does it REALLY NEED TO BE ECHOED AND AMPLIFIED by the Conservative blogosphere.
Can't the Conservative blogosphere actually CONSERVE something, such as FREEDOM of speech, freedom from crushing, soul-destroying conformity, freedom from leftist cultural impositions.
Whatever.
|
|
Dean,
Of course, her comment was completely inappropriate for this setting. And it was rude because it was rude, not because it was un-pc. That word has been a rude word for a long time.
By the way, I don't believe she was accusing John Edwards of being gay. She was calling him a wimp, and which of us would not agree with that? And yes, using that word to call someone a wimp is a slur against gays. And it's also a normal way for straight people to think. I'm reminded of what Michael Scott from "The Office" said: is it our "responsibility to put an end to 100,000 years of being weirded out by gays"?
At the same time, her book "Godless" is invaluable. She is an iconoclast. For instance, she skewers the sacred Miranda decision, and holds it responsible for releasing millions of violent predators. I am watching this truth in action now in Florida, where officials had to scramble to build a solid case against the monster John Couey, because the cops didn't rush to get him a lawyer while he was in the middle of confessing that he repeatedly raped then buried 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford alive.
I've been moved by her columns for years. Tomorrow she is speaking at my church, Coral Ridge Pres, and I am looking forward to seeing her. Agreed, she would be better served, as would we all, if she were less of a provocateur, because her outrageous comments distract from more important things. I hope she will learn to hold her tongue, but at the same time I value her passion and fearlessness. |
|
|
She disparaged women in the military and reservists when commenting on Abu Grhaib - I know plenty of reservists and women in the military and they are serving with honor and distinction and are being wounded and dying so people like Ann and the nutroots can say what they please - no matter how immature and idiotic they sound in the process. |
|
I would class myself as an independent and a relatively new participant in the blogosphere.
Putting aside Ms. Coulter, except as an example of the type of discussion here I value, I'd like to commend you all.
It has been my experience that the comments posted on this forum are generally more considered and aimed at active discussion of an issue, as opposed to what I see on others, HuffPo for instance, where things always seem to degenerate into ad hominem slurs rather quickly. I often do not agree with the comments posted here, but find the discussion always stimulating and thought provoking. Many other sites, left and right, are just provoking. |
|
Whatev,
Do you really think it's the same social offense to call a public figure, like Tom Cruise for example, a "vulgar-word-for-homosexual-that-starts-with-an-F," as it is to call an actual non-public gay man a "vulgar-word-for-homosexual-that-starts-with-an-F"? I don't think it's the same thing. For people like Tom Cruise, or John Edwards in this case, it kind of comes with the territory and they're used to tabloid-type rumors.
|
|
|
Jeffrey, you are right. No more comments needed for this stupidity. |
|
... was when Adam Carolla hung up on her when she showed up 20 minutes late for his talk show a few months back. She was OUTRAGED, and Adam was so f'ng funny.
You know, I was going to blog about this but honestly, I hate to contribute to the attention she craves. The worst thing that you can do to an attention hound like Coulter is ignore her.
Jeffrey
http://www.idolator.net |
|
Listen to the mp3 provided. At the end.
The audience is CHEERING, friends.
DU |
|
|
I’m not sure why some of you are trying to justify (or even encourage) her comments. She’s a smart woman but using comments like that reduce her to an intellectual nothing. Most of the things Liberals throw out there can be soundly defeated with LOGIC. There’ no place for this kind of garbage. |
|
Swampthing -
I wasn't aware that it was part of one's faith with Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, to call people we don't like faggots.
My mistake.
Pointing at repulsive comments from other websites is no excuse. Saying someone else gets away with it probably didn't fly with your mom when you were a child, and it doesn't work now.
We're the adults, remember? Or that's the claim.
What rationalizing. What pathetic arse-covering. Such is the state of the conservatism of William F. Buckley. It has degenerated to the conservatism of Ann Coulter.
Pathetic.
DU |
|
According to a result study Kommiecrats, oops, liberals use fowl language 18 times more then Americans, oops, conservatives.
Ann is just trying to balance things out but she still has a long way to go. Think of it as the Fairness Doctrine, PC for the vulgar.
But truly that vid of the Breck Girl brushing his hair makes you wonder.
Barber! Cut it close.... |
|
|
This is soooooooo silly. If Sheets Byrd can go on national TV and use the "n" word, then a private citizen should be able to say what she wishes, at a private gathering. |
|
|
She is to the Right what Moore is to the left - Embarrassing! |
|
|
please. No justification for this behavior; it serves no purpose and has nothing to do with Conservatism. Ann is very bright and witty; she does herself shame when she uses this kind of vile to deliver her message. I have no problem with her sarcasm, as she usually backs up such sarcasm with facts, but there is no reason to throw down the "faggot" statement, especially when Edwards gives her so many other targets. |
|
|
she is obsessed with this topic because I think she is gay. How else would you classify her tryst with Whorealdo? |
|
Just what we need: a foul-mouthed, self-centered, immature little twerp to offest all the foul-mouthed, self-centered, immature little twerps in the left wing blogosphere.
Actually, we DON'T need this.
She doesn't represent what it means to be conservative. She's an annoying, self-centered blowhard who fits in better with the phonies in LA than the small town people of middle America. |
|
...to Find Fault in Anything
If I say -- and I wouldn't -- but IF I say, for sake of discussion, "If Edwards is a faggot, that's ok," would I be guilty of calling him a "faggot"?
I bet we find at least one person who says, "yes." And I bet we find at least one person who says that I just called Edwards a "faggot." |
|
I would say that many heard the comment but didn't listen to it, and that's why they hear her calling Edwards a "faggot."
They allowed themselves the luxury of keying in onn certain, vein-popping words, and, then, they put these key words together in their minds and VOILA! she said something she didn't actually say. |
|
Yep, Ann really blew it. I did cringe when I replayed it. Most of the time, I can see her humor,even if it is derogatory, but that was...not cool, not the time or the place.
What gets me is why the left would defend the comments of the bloggers who wished ill on Cheney instead of taking their licks. I know, it isn't what they do,but I have hope.
|
|
»The real problem is not what she said or how she said it.«
Then nobody should have a prob with it since, as you say, there is no prob to have. I'll buy a ticket to that! |
|
|
Coulter's ill-advised comment overshadowed a good day for Romney and Rudy. It's a shame that the MSM will pick up on this more than the speeches by those two. She doesn't help the party's image with those type of comments. I think she is pretty funny most of the time, but she does tread over the line on occasion. This was one of those occasions. |
|
I always find it terribly precious when a lefty declares what "most righties" do, as laborlawyer has.
"Most righties" *celebrate* Coulter?
Uh. Since when? Sure, there's a segment of people on the right who think she's the epitome of fearless anti-PC, and applaud every syllable that falls from her lips. Crankery has its audiences. Bomb-throwers get TV and speaking gigs. This is true on both sides of the aisle.
But "most righties" *celebrate* her?
|
|
If homosexuality is such a good thing, why do people object to Coulter's comments?? Their reactions to her statement -- even though she stops short of calling him anything and would be declared "not responsible" for liability damages in a libel court -- indicate they think homosexuality is a bad thing. They should be saying, "If he's homosexual, that's ok." Of course it's not ok, but should be saying that, even for him, it's ok. |
|
The real problem is not what she said or how she said it.
The real problem is that Ann is the Star Attraction. She is the cause celeb.
I'm not a fan of PC. In fact if you read carefully what I right I'm always careful to add that Mudslinging is an important part of politics.
The real problem with conservatives is that Mudsling ing is politics.
Ann is the biggest celebrity going, bar none.
Who is a bigger celeberty at CPAC than Anne?
I find it interesting that on one hand Hugh is promoting a blog stating liberals use foul language infinitely more than conservatives, yet on the other hand Anne is a center piece for Town Hall.
Where is the respect?
The problem is that in politics as sports, Anne is one of the pillars of the right wing. Along with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Then you get into the second tier you get the Prager's, the Medved's and Gallagher's. All of whom give liberals no respect for anything and conduct themselves in liberal bashing fashion.
I keep seeing a lot lamenting in right wing media these days about finding the next Ronald Reagan.
Ain't gonna happen. What kind of interview could a Reagan give Rush Limbaugh?
Conservatives need to reach out to main stream Americans. Which means that Ann Coulter's role has to be a minor role.
Ann Coulter is a right wing darling.
Too bad William Buckley Jr. is not.
I was impressed with Samuel Alito when he testified in front of Congress. I remember him specifically saying when asked that his influences included William F. Buckley Jr.
Heaven help us if a future Justice of the Supreme Court cites any of the icons and pillars of right wing thinking today.
I do not expect the right wing or politics in general to move away from mud slinging. I understand if you all find politics as sporst fun.
But the problem is that Mud slinging is all there is on the right wing. Which is the only reason I post here.
If a positive message from a great Republican orator had been given as the main attraction today then Ann's sillyness would be put in perspective.
But the right wing rolls her majesty out on Fox News, AM Radio, syndicated columinst, books and Town Hall she is considered a pillar of the right by Americans at large.
Where is the *respected* voice of equal weight who does not mud sling?
That's the real problem. The vacuum of respectibility caused by the over abundance of liberal bashers and bashing.
|
|
First of all, anybody that listens to comment and takes it seriously has a screw loose. That language was simply Coulter being Coulter and I see nothing suprising nor shocking about it.
C'mon, the vast majority of political junkies I talk to think John Edwards comes across as a big wuss and Ann's simply saying the same thing with with different verbage.
Pretty disheartening to read comments from supposed conservatives that are everybit as PC as our liberal brethren.
Dean, relax. Your love for Romney doesn't lead any of us to think you're... |
|
»As to having a problem with homosexuality. One can certainly have issues with it without being classless. Not like God at all.«
Perception of "class" is merely that...perception, a value judgment. "Class" is not an objective fact. It is how one FEELS about what one sees.
God said that His Judgment is harsh. He doesn't say, "There, there." Yet, even with harshness, He has class.
He expects His Elect to declare His Word. If that's too much for the wicked, the wicked have to get Him to change His Mind. |
|
You're right, the comments aren't indicative of a site.
Posts, however, can be a flashlight:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-hendra/a-thanksgiving-prayer-for_b_34780.html
"O Lord, give Dick Cheney’s Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor."
There is a precedent. That isn't a comment, it's a post. The word "trend" comes to mind, but it's only for that (pathetic) site and its (pathetic) minions, not the left as a whole, to be sure. |
|
The comment seems to be clear cut at the whole notion of political correctness. That being said, there are so many intelligent ways to communicate that and still be funny. Ms. Coulter was (and not for the first time either) crass and distasteful, which, in turn, takes the potency from her comment. Yuck!
As to having a problem with homosexuality. One can certainly have issues with it without being classless. Not like God at all. Yuck! |
|
...in Coulter's Statement
»...while hinting that John Edwards is a homosexual«
She may have been hinting, and maybe people are perceiving a hint that's not there. Her clear language points clearly to the latter.
Just because a thought enters a person's mind doesn't mean the speaker put it there. |
|
You're overstating Queen Ann's prominence within the conservative movement. She's entertainment & a valued pundit, but not a policy wonk. She's good when debating the Al Franken's of the world, but she's not leading any legitimate group like the aforementioned Jackson or Bond, nor is she held up as a journalist as Helen Thomas or Keith Olberman (guffaw) has been during the continuous MSM glowing profiles. Every time Ann has said something stupid, she's been called on it from the right. Every. Time.
And she's currently being lambasted on the web from the right as I type.
Me, I'm still waiting on Al Gore's apology for calling me a "digital brownshirt", because to me being aligned with murderers of Jews is a lot worse than Ann parsing words while hinting that John Edwards is a homosexual. And my ears are still hurting from the media outrage over THAT comment....aren't yours, my fellow brownshirt? |
|
I was about to give you an unqualified pat on the back, until I read your comment above. Sigh. Why couldn't you leave well enough alone? But no, you had to go back to this silly debate about anonymous commenters, as if that compares to a celebrated (by most righties) writer like Coulter.
Go take a look at the comment page for David Limbaugh's column on John Kerry this week right here on Townhall, where I've flagged some nutball comments about Kerry ("would throw him an anchor instead of a life preserver","stfu", "wouldn't urinate-not the word used-on him if he were on fire", etc). No, I don't hold you, Townhall, or the Republican Party to those beliefs, anymore than the nutball lefties on HuffPost represent us mainstream liberals. I ask again- can you cite a single Democratic elected official, or any mainstream liberal writer or commentator expressing and or supporting such views?
As to comparisons- reynolds has a good one, Gore Vidal. I don't think Vidal will be advising Obama or Edwards any time soon.
BC- Arianna wrote a post condemning the comments about Cheney and removed them from her website. I will wait to see what Townhall does with the disgusting statements about Kerry. Not holding my breath.
|
|
DB graces us with, "Without parsing her comments...Does anyone really want to argue that her use of a slur word in that setting was anything other than moronic? Come on, people. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was making some intellectual point about political correctness. Was this the time or place? And was it appropriate for her to use the language she did?
Mind you, i'm not saying she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Listen to the audio or better still seek out the video - her sentiment was profoundly offensive."
Parsing is the name of the game since Clinton, whose chosen language was meant to cloud.
On the opposite end, if we simply look at Miss Coulter's language -- it doesn't take much parsing -- in this, she did not call anybody "faggot," only refer to a hypothetical that HAD SHE CALLED him a "faggot," there would be repercussions. Now there are repercussions even though she stopped short of calling him a "faggot." She can't win.
Now, we can argue about her sentiment only IF we know what her state of mind is in order to clear it up. We don't. All we have for the record is what she said and what she didn't say. |
|
The trouble with Ann is that 60% of what she says gives the other 40% a bad reputation.
There are times she can cut like a razor - and those other, all too frequent times that she cuts like a hammer... |
|
ScarletPimpernel writes: »BT where have you been?
for the past 20 years? for every Ann Coulter slip-up we can show you dozens of slurring sprees by the Al Frankens, Michael Moores, Keith Olbermans, Chris Mathews, Bryant Gumbels, Andy Rooneys, Helen Thomases, James Carvells, Julian Bonds, Jesse Jacksons, Julianne Malveaux, Dan Rathers ad infintum on the left. «
The flaming Lib, Ray Taliaferro [KGO] has repeatedly called the president a "murderer."
|
|
Does anyone really want to argue that her use of a slur word in that setting was anything other than moronic? Come on, people. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was making some intellectual point about political correctness. Was this the time or place? And was it appropriate for her to use the language she did?
Mind you, i'm not saying she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Listen to the audio or better still seek out the video - her sentiment was profoundly offensive. |
|
After reading the text of her comment (and the historical reference contained therein) it seems to me that, while there was a veiled shot at John Edwards, the comment was more about making commentary on the fascist undergirding of political correctness rather than about insulting Mr. Edwards.
What disturbs me is the fear on the Right of being cast by the Left as insensitive, conservative dunderheads. Don't they already describe us that way? Of course they do. Ann's comment is NOT going to change that one iota.
The problem in my view is not what Ann Coulter said, it is the fact that so many conservatives are more concerned with what she said than they are with the underlying problem to which she is making reference. How about some of you get on the ball and stop the Left from making verbal mistakes a career-ending event? How long will you continue to buy into the Left's tyranny over speech? If we restrict Ann from future conservative gatherings, we will have done exactly what the Left wants us to do.
When will we stop letting the Left control the debate!?
The Old Whig |
|
As I say, look at what she said. The words she used and in the order she used them, and what she did not say.
Had she called him a "faggot," she would have said, "He is a 'faggot'!" She did not call him a "faggot."
She said that, were she to call him a "faggot," the Lib PC Police would have run her in. |
|
for the past 20 years? for every Ann Coulter slip-up we can show you dozens of slurring sprees by the Al Frankens, Michael Moores, Keith Olbermans, Chris Mathews, Bryant Gumbels, Andy Rooneys, Helen Thomases, James Carvells, Julian Bonds, Jesse Jacksons, Julianne Malveaux, Dan Rathers ad infintum on the left.
As Vitale would say, "It's an NCer baaaabaaaay!!" |
| | |