Saturday, March 03, 2007
|
|
Ann Coulter And Michael Richards
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:09 AM
|
|
Ann Coulter is a political comedian who, like Michael Moore, often offends, and sometimes crosses the bounds of decency.
Yesterday she entered the territory where Michael Richards went when he employed the n-word to abuse a heckler. When Coulter employed the f-word to abuse a candidate, she made herself radioactive because the word is a simply invitation to hate. It was repulsive.
I cannot imagine Coulter being invited to any panel or television appearance on which I would want to appear. Colleges and universities must also stop inviting her to appear as a representative of the conservative movement in America. She is not. You want smart, accomplished and funny conservative women? Ask K-Lo, Laura Ingraham or Carol Liebau to appear, or chose from scores of others. But not Ann Coulter --she represents only a snarl and a deep need to be noticed.
|
|
...that an obviously smart and funny person is so overwhelmed by her desire for attention. She's a loose cannon that must be distanced from mainstream conservative thought.
She's not worth the trouble. And now she'll be everywhere, refusing to back down, and making the sane on the right look bad. Let the CNN's of the world have her; she should never be given a spot on any serious conservative platform. |
|
When viewed sans her acerbic, sarcastic rhetoric, many of Coulter's ideas and her unapologetic argumentation are compelling. But, as you noted, her invective diminishes her standing among serious conservative analysts.
It's simply beneath credible commentary to use such language. It also reflects a lack of confidence in your arguments, which ought to be able to stand alone, unpersonalized and without the adolescent motivation to use language to injure.
The other conservative female I would add to Hugh's list is Michelle Malkin. She's strong, unforgiving, but a real professional.
Philip Mella
ClearCommentary.com |
|
Nothing wrong with that. . . but she was not promoting the GOP or Mitt Romney yesterday. It was all about Ann.
Frankly--we rightly attack the left for its shameful over the top rhetoric and crassness. We should try to avoid it ourselves. Ann could have told jokes about Edwards (he is an easy target) that would have had those attendees rolling in the isles. Why use a school yard slur? |
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Coulter is not like Michael Richards. The latter does not help shape a sizable portion of the population's worldview. He does not present his comedy as an informed perspective on real issues. She does. Additionally, she would deny she is a comedian (while, I guess, WE would deny Richards is a comedian). And, note, when he said what he said, people gasped; when she said what she said, people cheered. No one will publicly support racism, but homophobia is still widely acceptable in our society.
As long as Ann Coulter keeps getting book contracts, showing up on Fox and the Today Show, and speaking at major (and mainstream) conferences, she is far too dangerous a voice to dismiss so facilely. Until those who listen to her reject her form of diatribe, she will continue to be a poison in the veins of the body politic. |
|
|
...John Edwards would hire her to blog for his campaign. |
|
Perhaps the other issue at stake her is not what to make of what she said, but to ask why she thought (correctly, it turns out) her audience might be amused by it. People can wring their hands (or not based on many of the comments in the last post on this topic), but the Republicans have long taken advantage of anti-gay feelings. It is one of their favorite wedge issues, and their rhetoric is only more carefully articulated -- but rarely less hateful. I will be curious to see how long it takes for people to start using Guliani's gay roommates against him, as though even knowing gay people is a problem.
So, in short, it is easy to act as though Coulter has gone too far -- but it is all an act until conservatives press their leaders to address inequities in our society regarding gay couples. |
|
|
I do not consider the two terms even remotely similar. The "n" word and "f-you", while both socially unacceptable, do have gradations of being reprehensible. I think you know this. I don't defend using either one, but I've been frustrated enough to use the latter without using the former. And I'm sorry, with the absolute disgraceful vitriol she gets from people--something, frankly, Hugh you don't receive because you're male--I may be able to understand it. I would have a problem with a man slapping another political opponent (it would demonstrate his being too unpredictable), I would have no such problem if a woman were to slap a man across the face for saying something deplorable. Sorry, I have a double standard for behavior that we've always understood. Cad deserve a face slap or "f-you" when speaking deplorably to a woman...especially if men are not willing to intercede. |
|
Sorry but all the above comments sound like politically correct leftist crap.
Ann, over the top....yes. Thats what she does and very well. No matter how carefully politically correct the prose is spoken or written by any conservative the left will find a way to turn it around....so why should she be careful.
CB |
|
|
|
Every movment needs a firebrand, someone who is lude, crude and unacceptable to society. That's Ann's job.
I get tired of Conservatives and Republicans apologizing for bleeding on the carpet after being stabbed in the back.
I get tired of being reasonable and PC when what is called for is a knuckle sandwich.
That's the vicarious pleasure of Ann's outbursts.
Besides, what she probaly meant to say starts with c, rhymes with bloodsucker, and means trial lawyer. |
|
|
Exactly right. PC run wild on the Right. How about a little slack, Hugh? I am reminded of mothers eating their young for piddling on the carpet. |
|
|
I thought the "f" word was the other "f" word. I didn't even think of that one as being the "f" word. We need new designations. |
|
Well-
A lot of comments, but one salient one: Will Townhall carry her column? Hugh, you yourself post that the right should distance itself from her...but, you haven't. You carry her column. Perhaps it's time to walk the talk...
|
|
This seems to be support for my point. Rick J, PokerGuy et al. all turn this into an issue about the PC police, lefties etc. It seems everyone is focused simply on the word, but people are ignoring the sentiment. "Jimbo," why are the two words (n-word/f-word) different? Aren't they both slurs meant to dehumanize an entire group of people? Aren't they expressions of hate for people based solely on what they are -- how they were born? The only difference, as I wrote above, is that many people accept hating gays.
Rick J -- when did gay people call for a "knuckle sandwich"? What has an entire range of people in our population done to deserve this sort of treatment?
|
|
|
You don't have to agree with her to find her to be very entertaining. I have listened to her completely demolish senators and other politicians one-on-one because they underestimate her. Sure, she's over the top but she is NOT Michael Moore. She's a polemicist. Let's not knuckle under to the libs again by letting them paint the picture for us again. Ann doesn't represent conservatives. Surely, we can have a sense of humor about politics. Relax and enjoy. Ann is very, very funny. |
|
However, rather than self-centeredness, I see a deeply frustrated individual who can no longer cope with the many double standards in place throughout the media and society-at-large. Sadly, I see the marks of a pending 'nervous breakdown'.
Currently there is no public condemnation or politically-incorrect ethos regarding vile and vicious (yes, even hate-filled) language directed at religious and Christian conservatives. Will religious conservatives soon be identified with armbands?
Those 'left-of-center' religiously who are NOT the object of such public contempt and scorn simply don't feel the sting of the anti-Christian bigotry afoot and thus don't understand.
I believe Ann's crusade for a 'level playing field' and civility toward people of faith in the public square has reached a point of deep personal despair. It is this that has pushed her into such an unflattering persona. She needs to take a break, before she breaks! |
|
I must admit that I was repulsed by these comments, and in particular, her self-satisfied manner of delivering them, and even more particularly, the audience reaction ("ooooo-ha ha ha"). I have always thought Coulter at the bottom end of the political foodchain, a kind of sideshow act for unstable and frenzied Americans. Personally, I think she's a contemptible person--the kind of person who is quick to challenge the character and virtue of others, but does not seem to have it in spades herself.
At the same time, that's free speech. I personally think its symptomatic of where conservatism is these days--loud, organized, even vicious, but not much going on in the sense of having smart or original ideas. But hey, free speech means there is no guarantee than you won't get your feelings hurt. And it protects louts like Larry Flynt and Ann Coulter so that we are all protected. |
|
"Will religious conservatives soon be identified with armbands?"
Are you serious? That is delusional hyperbole. Do you sincerely mean to compare the treatment of religous conservatives in America -- who often claim responsibility for ELECTING the current President -- with the condition of Jews (and, lest you forget the pink triangles) Homosexuals before the Holocaust? That is a pathetic, self-pitying comparison. Grow up.
How is it that whenever a conservative spews hate, his or her supporters seem to see themselves as the victims? I thought it was conservatives who loathed the culture of victimhood? I can't think of a whinier group (with less to whine about) than conservatives -- oooohhh, so marginalized -- until your people blew it, you had all the branches of government; you have a powerful news channel; and you have Democratic candidates for President tripping all over themselves sucking up to christians. |
|
I appreciate the point the Ann was making about political correctness run amok. It's incredibly easy it is to send the PC Crowd (Mr Hewitt included) into a hysterical tizzy.
|
|
Ann said the same on FoxTV one month ago. No "bruhaha". PC run amok? Yes. Let it rip Ann.
99.9% of her insight/output is not offensive,except to moonbats and those who look down on America.Let Ann be Ann. Dean B. and Hugh,et al should refrain from analyzing/commenting on her... that is for others. |
|
Question: What responsibility does John Edwards bear in hiring the verbally-vile, lesbian, anti-Catholic/Christian bigots Amanda Marcotte & Melissa McEwan and then refusing to publicaly denounce their vitriol and fire them?
Are not Howard Dean and other Democrats grossly hypocritical for looking the other way regarding Presidential candidate John Edward's decision and behavior? |
|
i applaud hugh and dean for their stand. they are right.
first, what does homosexuality have to do with edwards?
he's an attractive man with a wife and family, who lost one of his children. what kind of broad point was ann trying to make? none.
you know that there are homosexuals who vote republican?
they serve in the military and fight for the right for ann coulter to call people "faggot." i dare one of you frightened phony christians to call my friend in the marines a "faggot" to his gay face.
a gay man fought terrorists on a plane bound for washington.
would you call him a "faggot" at a religious conservative political rally?
the VOP should not be in an audience of people laughing at a cheap slur while his daughter is a homosexual.
did cheney laugh? would his daughter?
if this is your plan to win votes in 2008...keep it up.
ann insults 9/1 widows, lies on a dailt basis, shows no love or compasion in her soul and you genuinely scary people think she represents some sort of christian conservative gadfly.
to each his disturbed own. |
|
i applaud hugh and dean for their stand. they are right.
first, what does homosexuality have to do with edwards?
he's an attractive man with a wife and family, who lost one of his children. what kind of broad point was ann trying to make? none.
you know that there are homosexuals who vote republican?
they serve in the military and fight for the right for ann coulter to call people "faggot." i dare one of you frightened phony christians to call my friend in the marines a "faggot" to his gay face.
a gay man fought terrorists on a plane bound for washington.
would you call him a "faggot" at a religious conservative political rally? |
|
|
I just watched the video and can't believe all this politically correct overreacting and trashing of Ann Coulter. I don't always agree with her methods, but good grief, I expected something much worse after all of the self-righteous wringing of hands above. Yes, she is outlandish at times, but to treat her this way is paranoia. Thankfully, Marc's comments (above) and some others are more rational. I love you Hugh, but I thought you were wrong about her Jersey Girl comments also, although I would not put it the way she did. A lot of us are tired of all of this protection of people who use their grief to harm or manipulate others. Some of the above comments border on viscious attacks trying to ruin her, which I find just as distasteful. |
|
|
Lets be honest. The democrat party is the feminine party. The republican party the masculine party. Have you ever seen that video of Edwards brushing his hair before a TV appearance. He resembles a teenage girl or a homosexual. Lets be honest, this man, and a lot of liberal men display these feminine traits. Ann was bold enough to point it out. The audience laughed because she was right. The comment from Mr. Hewitt is a continuation of his dislike of Ms. Coulter. Funny is only funny when it has truth behind it. If you don't like her humor, don't listen. |
|
What is wrong with Ann using the F----- word, it
is not as bad as some of the words the Dems use.
Dems such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and
Howard Dean all spew out hatered and name calling. If John Edwards gets $ out of Ann's
talk, it shows how bad they are hurting for things to help them raise money.
|
|
|
You guys sound, by and large, like the Dartmouth Administration. Why don't we forget being offended for a bit and worry more about taking back the country instead of sulking in the corner like a bunch of wimps. |
|
Hugh,
Context matters, Ann would not do a comedy routine like she did at CPAC in a serious panel discussion. So to say that you would not sit with her at a panel discussion comes off as childish.
While it is a legit point of view to say that Ann is brilliant and doesn't need to do this. It was obviously Ann being comedian. Think of all the leftist comedian's that use every cuss word in the book against republicans in their jokes(Whoopi Goldberg etc) yet where is the outrage there? While some would say that we hold our own to a higher standard, I say context matters.
If the left complains about what Ann said, we should throw every liberal comedian in their face including Bill Maher. The fact that the left is even mad over Ann's obvious comedy is a glaring example of their partisan hypocrisy.
It was comedy, grow a spine.
Context matters!
|
|
How many times have Rosie O'Donuts and other leftie "spokesmen" invoked the Taliban to describe Christian conservatives? Is there a hue and cry from conservatives to have such moonbats shunned and removed from television?
What about US Today columnist Julianne Malveaux, who has called GWB a "terrorist", and opined on TV that she hoped Clarence Thomas' wife fed him fatty food so he would die from a heart attack. Was she shunned?
Wasn't it just last week that many on the left were openly dismayed that Cheney survived an attack at the Bagram airbase --- in other words wishing for his death?
How about Keith Olbermann and others who routinely condemn the Bush and Cheney as fascists and liars?
And wasn't it Al Gore who referred to conservative supporters of Ollie North as the "extra chromosome crowd"?
So....Why should conservatives eat their own while the left averts its collective gaze when their icons demean and dehumanize US and our leadership?
Maybe someone should take Coulter aside and tell her she's doing conservatism no good by engaging in name-calling. But shun her and silence her??
Didn't Dean Barnett say that calls for Dinesh D'Souza to be similarly shunned and silenced, as a fitting response to his new book (which Barnett found execrable), were going way too far? Why is Coulter's case different?
Finally, there's an ironic aspect that's been missed: google a bit and you'll find that many on the left are convinced that Coulter is a man, or at least trans-gender, claiming that her prominent Adam's Apple is "proof". For some reason, perhaps unstated because it is completely illogical, these moonbats think Coulter's questionable gender disqualifies her arguments.
So...Anyone want to explain why intimating that someone has had an addadictomy or is a cross-dresser is OK, but calling someone a faggot is
a capital offense? |
|
Coulter has turned into a one-person carnival side show. FOX has become unwatchable because of her, Dick Morris and Susan Estridge, to name but a few.
She is as much a friend of conservatives and Jane Fonda is of liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
This is vintage Ann Coulter, and she has been doing it for a long time...and maintaining her image as a darling of the Conservative movement at the same time. However, you did got this right: "she made herself radioactive because the word is a simply invitation to hate"; on the other hand, isn't that part of her schtick...appeal to the bigotry and the emotion of hatred in her audience? |
|
|
|
|
she shouldn't have done it, but she did. who cares? |
|
|
Don't flatter yourself. This generation of Republican men are as preening and narcissistic as little girls. |
|
Just the other night, Bill Maher openly expressed disappointment that Dick Cheney wasn't killed in the Bagram attack. Here's part of the transcript, taken from Noel Shepherd's blog at
http://newsbusters.org/node/11169
"After some discussion about why Huffington should or shouldn’t have taken these comments [about Cheney] down, the following occurred:
[John] Ridley: It’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney, which applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion." And I think, you know…
Maher: But you should be able to say it. And by the way...
[Barney] Frank: Excuse me, Bill, but can I ask you a question? Do you decide what the topics are for this show?
Maher: Yeah, I decide the topics, they don’t go there.
Frank: But you exercise control over the show the way that she does over her blog.
Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)
[Joe]Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…
Frank: I think he did.
Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…
Maher: No, no. I quoted that.
Frank: You don’t believe that?
Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.
[end transcript]
*****************************
If logically consistent and morally upright, Leftists expressing outrage over Coulter's remarks should demand that Maher too be immediately shunned and and cast into the political darkness --- despite Maher's assertion that he should be able to say "it",namely express disappointment that the Vice President was not assassinated.
So....Jimbo et al..... do the right thing, will you?
And funny, innit, that the MSM is not devoting great gobs of airtime to Maher's offensive and bigoted remarks. |
|
I recognized and excused John Kerry's botched joke about "get stuck in Iraq." I recognized this as a botched joke, too. Her mistake was using too recent a pop culture reference (http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/59979) with an "edgy" word to an intellectual audience. I'll bet fans of Oprah and The View, and People magazine readers would understand the reference.
Ya'll got sucked in by everyone fighting to be the first to denounce her instead of actually listening to (or reading) what she said. If anything, she was being polite by exercising the old maxim: "If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all."
It does illustrate the difference(hence, proving Coulter's point) between how Kerry was defended, but Coulter is vilified. Apparently, people have higher expectations from a conservative pundit than any Democrat. If I was Edwards, I'd be more insulted by that.
Move on. Nothing to see here.
|
|
To cover all the banned words.
Let's see:
2 f words
an n word
a j word
a k word
3 w words (whitey variants and w-p)
a d word (think British)
2 p words
a c word
an s word
etc.
Golly. What's the world coming to? I'm so b-mmed. Heck and darn. Shoot. Dang it.
Oh, sorry. I'm off to wash my mouth out with Dial. Back in a minute. |
|
Carol Liebau and K-LO funny, ... funny....???????....................................?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Are you kidding me, are you kidding us?
Are you seriously suggesting that K-LO and Liebau are funny?
Are you seriously suggesting that those two are even in the same class of humour as an Ann Coulter?
Come on Hewitt!
Are you SERIOUSLY going to say that you've NEVER laughed at any of the barbs that Coulter has tossed around?
That ALL of her humour leaves you cold?
Knock off the feigned outrage.
I tell ya what, we'll demand an apology from Coulter, when the Gay community apologies for the Gay Pride parades that are hosted down prominent American boulevards. Parades so revolting and raunchy, so "hate-filled," that the media and the newspapers do their level best making sure the actual visuals don't get widely circulated.
Every year the Gay community targets St. Patrick Cathedral. One year, what they did was so sacrilegious, that John Cardinal O' Connor had to re-sanctify the Cathedral. The Church RARELY does such a thing. THAT'S HOW BAD IT WAS.
Where were Gay leaders like Sullivan for instance during all of that? AWOL, that's where.
Gays can say and do just about anything, and nobody says a word in reproach, in rebuff, in rebuke.
But let an American conservative cross a line drawn by those oozing hostility for our values, for values that MADE America great, and then we, YES WE CONSERVATIVES will lead the chorus in denunciation.
And Hewitt thinks this is a wise situation to let continue.
If American Conservatives want to replicate Democrat wimpiness, what's to become of America?
|
|
Come on people; we Conservatives DO hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse. Let the leftists be the purveyors of hatred and profane idiocy! We are (or at least SHOULD be) better than that. Ann has embarrassed us long enough. See my post at:
rubberduck.townhall.com
RC |
|
|
Commenter Pat has it right. Hear/read what Ann said BEFORE blasting her. She did not call Mr. Edwards the f.. name. Said she would but did not want to go into rehab thus ridiculing the recent situation in which a TV series regular entered rehab to save his job after using the word to describe a colleague. The fellow said he knew he needed to get his mind right. Victim groups are about to push all non-members into the re-education house. |
|
Holding ourselves to a higher standard has gotten us a simp in the WH, a Democratic Congress, and an adversarial and treasonous Media. It's time we got down and dirty. Intellect, reason, and logic are lost on the majority of the American people -- that's why Democrats still exist.
Americans likes a good fight regardless of what they say, and they'll vote for the winner. Everyone -- except the hardcore Left-- was all behind the Iraq policy when we were kicking a**. It wasn't until we started waging a PC diplomatic war instead of leveling the joint that things started going south (i.e. Fallujah)-- which is why the Left insisted on it. Bush caved to the Peaceniks, and voila...
Let's not make the same mistake again. |
|
Didn't expect to see comments so blunt from you but you are setting a standard Republicans should follow. I could really care less what the extreme leftists are saying.
The party that shows it can control and call out the rogue elements will be the party that attracts people who may not have considered that party before.
Keep it up - there may be hope yet. Bravo again. |
|
I thought from my opening line that it was clear that I was generally supporting Ann Coulter. As for homosexuals, I could care less. I have to tolerate, I do not have to accept.
As for knuckle sandwiches, everytime I hear or read the President compared to Hitler or called a terrorist, or moonbats diappointed the VP didn't die, or media sensationalism over Cheney's lesbian daughter, yeah all that rates a knuckle sandwich.
All the times I've been called a Nazi, a Fascist, a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a sexist mouth-breather, (I have to own mouth-breather - sinus and COPD will do that to you. Sniffle, Sniffle, Cough, Cough) because I disagreed with someone ,yeah that merits a five finger rebuke or two.
But I don't. I am civilized and it would be rude.
(Besides, I am too old and too sick to do it justice.)
Ann delivers those VERBAL knuckle sandwiches for me and I cheer her on.
|
|
To Dean and Hugh:
Get real about Ann Coulter. She knows how to excite a convention. Your comments only show your male chauvinism. When Rush Limbaugh (the great one) calls John Edwards "Breck girl", I don't hear any cries from the left or right. Ann Coulter is far from an idiot - she is taking the heat and the theme away from the main stream media about the Republican presidential candidates. Otherwise we would be hearing how many times Giuliani was married, the amount of liberal judges he appointed, and about Romney being a mormon and how his great great great grandfather had 12 wives. Thank God for Ann. I agree with Carol Carlottasay and Marc (Townhall goes). |
|
TALK ABOUT OVERREACTION...
THE TERM GAINED ACCEPTABILITY AFTER IT WAS USED BY LARRY KRAMER FOR THE TITLE OF HIS RATHER FAMOUS 1978 NOVEL CRITIQUING GAY MEN--"FAGGOTS"
OF COURSE PC WAS IN ITS INFANCY BACK THEN. SO NEARLY 30 YEARS LATER THE USE OF THE WORD IS SCANDALOUS? PA-LEEEZ!
RD |
|
Was Ann Coulter's remark offensive ?...Yes
Did Coulter make the remark in the wrong venue ? Yes
But the only thing more offensive than Coulter's remarks are those on this board who want to censor her remarks. Republicans have been critical of democrats who censor (and rightly so for being critical), but now the neocons who run this board have shown their true colors. On this issue, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hugh Hewitt and the liberals he bashes for a living. |
|
I am not a fan of Miss Ann. She addresses an audience...face it bros...that for the most part has little solid background in philosophy, politics or history of ideas. She does munchin Conservatives great service by "essentially"
keeping them up to speed on what goes-on, and WHO's WHO?(If you ever expected AC to carry weight from Aristotle & Aquinas down through Churchill,to John Keegan and our own Victor Davis Hanson,forget it.)Doris Kearns Goodwin carries weight(she is a scholar). Peter Brown carries weight(the renowned biographer of St.Augustine). Ann Coulter is well-read,well-fed,entertainer
(superlative match for that dreck-spewing Michael Moore).Also recall how PC-homie Bill Maher called the 9/11 Terrorists real "soldiers".Coulter,
apparently, made the same kind of kind of slip people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use in trade to pile/bile on.If she had termed Edwards a narcissistic prig with delusions of grandeur she would've earned him a place in the dictionary next to PRISSY. Don't pander to the PC Police,
gentlemen.As we used to say in the Army,cut Coulter some slack...
Arthur McVarish, Houston |
|
GIVE ME A BREAK! You Romney-supporting elites need to calm down.
The left utters far worse every day on the VIEW (Bush is a murderer) or at HuffPo (Wish Cheney died), or at KosKooks (Scew 'em), or at OlberNut (Bush is a nazi), etc.
And John Edwards can HIRE bomb-throwing, hate-spewing Christo-phobes, but Ann can't say that the word FAGGOT?
Enough with the self-importance.
|
|
... have their "world view" "shaped" by public figures.
Manfred said:
"Ann Coulter is not like Michael Richards. The latter does not help shape a sizable portion of the population's worldview."
Only a conformist, pacifist mentality such as those on the left could ever think that Ann Coulter is shaping the world view of a sizeable portion of the population. Its only people on the left like you, Manfred, that are told what to think and what to say and who accept it uncritically and repeat it on cue.
The left's phony outrage over Coulter's non-remark just proves one thing: they can dish it out, but they can't take it. |
|
Was stupid, tasteless, and probably hurt conservatives more than liberals. BUT
It was just a comment. Even as children we knew that 'sticks and stones may break our bones, but names will never hurt us.'
How did we become a nation afraid of words? No one is bleeding from this (yes, I know someone will probably return that this stupidity leads to gay-bashing, but no one really claims Edwards is gay, do they?).
Ann is an acquired taste and a guilty pleasure most of the time. Why don't we just agree to rehab - we can forgive Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, that guy from "Gray's Anatomy" (sorry, don't watch the show or know his name) - maybe Ann is saveable too. |
|
Why could not Ms. Coulter have meant "faggot" in the sense of "a bundle things not forming any genuine unity", which the Oxford English Dictionary lists as the 3rd most likely meaning of "faggot"? With this interpretation, Ms. Coulter's entire remark makes complete sense. Remember that a person was recently forced to resign because he used — correctly — the word "niggardly." Every one assumed, incorrectly, that he had used a derogatory term for African-American.
Why then does everyone assume that in using the word "faggot," Ms. Coulter was intending to imply that Edwards is a homosexual? (this meaning of "faggot" is number 6 in the Oxford Dictionary). I know of no evidence that Edward is a homosexual, and to my knowledge, no one has even claimed that he was.
On the other hand, many conservatives have indeed claimed that Edwards' political philosophy lacks coherence.
Ms. Coulter could have been making the additional point that it is ridiculous for us to cease using some perfectly good words just because they have an additional meaning that have now become offensive to some.
|
|
Give me a break, please, for two reasons.
Ann's invective, while sometimes inappropriate, does not compare to the invective of Michael Moore, DKos, et al. She's never profane, they pride themselves on profanity. And it seems obvious to me that calling somebody a faggot does not rise to the same level as calling them fascists, Nazis, Bushitler, and accusing them of deliberately and deceitfully starting wars, murdering people, etc.
Also. Her logic, compared to Moore and the gang, is stunning, dazzling, consistent, and coherent.
They are raving lunatics. She's a smart lawyer with a potty mouth. |
|
muahahaha....Yea because the Conservative movement has so prospered under the reign of those clowns in the suits. Lets see which victories did we win....
1.Colleges more and more left wing...hell left wing would be an improvement over where we are now...Great Victory suits. Yea lets continue to be civil in college.
2. Mainstream News Media...lets see we just had Bill Maher call for the death of the Vice President...yup looks like a victory for the Conservative movement there.
3. Courts now find rights for bugs, thugs, and whatnot in a document that lasted over 200 years without such rights...another stunning victory for the conservative movement.
Bottomline when you have such a string of defeats attached to your tactics you don't keep doing what got you there. The left wing establishs a position then screams and shouts and waits till everyone agrees to comprimise with that position...then folks like you agree to be "civil" and the goal posts move to the left again. The next set of demands move the posts further down the field and the whole process happens again.
At one point in this countries history being a faggot was not a sign of accomplishment but something to hide. Pretty soon the goal posts will have moved enough that we will be debating about what is so wrong with having sex with children.
Those who believe that they can comprimise with evil are fooling themselves...all of our "victories" in colleges, mainstream media, newspapers, intellectual circles reminds us what comprimise has gotten us.
Those same "principled" right wing mouthpieces who feign horror with Ann will be the same exact ones who cluck their tongues and say there wasn't anything we could do about the Hate Speech laws shutting down free speech in this country.
You go Ann because the men of the movement have misplaced their balls. To hell with the nice guy tactics...they get us defeat and comprimise and comprimising with evil is simply not possible without becoming ever more evil ourselves. I laud Ann Coulter... |
|
...at the fragile little flowers we've all become in the Republican Party. This is not like the N-word. Every conservative family, every Republican family, has some gay cousin, or gay uncle, that they love just as much as the other family members. Gay slurs are not like ethnic slurs. Any human can be "gay." It's a behavior. Not every human can be black, try as they will.
That's more disgusting than what Ann said is this pathetic thumb-sucking over a "bad word." What a sheltered life some of you must have led. The reaction is much more pathetic than Ann's joke about Isaiah Washington's predicament, and more tangentially about the silky-haired John Edwards.
|
|
|
|
|
A different perjorative "f" word, politically correct and more accurate to boot, a would have been "fop." A fop is a dandy, a gentleman absorbed by his appearance, his clothes, styled hair, shined nails, and sparkling smile. Hmmm. And does that describe John Edwards? |
|
|
Interesting how the audience thought Ann's line was funny, but the bloggers quickly united to castigate her. This is sort of how I always imagined the MSM works - the NYT prints their view and the WaPo and LAT fall in line . Michelle Malkin wrote of her disapproval at 2:03 p.m yesterday and over the next several hours everyone is on board with her. I don't think Michelle has ever cared for Ann Coulter but that's just a guess. Are conservative bloggers going to relay their true thoughts to their readers, or are they more interested in gaining the approval of their fellow bloggers? |
|
Good questions. I am not a Malkin fan at all and think she is an opportunist out for a buck much like Coulter (her hotair site even says that in the TOS/agreement - "in it to make money" or something like that).
I think that the whole blogosphere could go the direction of the MSM as you described.. a venue in which personalities are leading the herds. But if that is what happens I think they will stay much as they are now -- complaint boards for the people who subscribe to the popular political views of the host.
I will say that for a conservative site such as TH to call her out is a good sign. If the other major sites, left and right, began to do this it would be a welcome sign. I've been to many of the left and right leaning sites and have to give TH credit for being more adult than the others by far. |
|
|
With a government system filled with lawyers, it takes an attorney like Anne Coulter to say it the way it is. She has nailed Edwards for the fake that he is. He has no morals. He will "do" anyone he can that will get him the power he needs. It's time for Repubs to storm the PC castle and kick some faggot *ss. |
|
|
and that is why we should shun her - Rosie and Mahar and bloggers can say what they want about Cheney dying and our soldiers being cowards, and the left does nothing - Ann makes a inane remark that crosses the line and we rightly cast her out - she should apologize and do some sort of penance - (maybe appear on the View?) and then we can move on - she should not be seen as anything but a fringe right-wing nut job - but we need her to counteract the kooks on their side. But she does not represent me - I would never defame the gay community by associating them with that phony ambulance chaser - the "Breck girl" as he is called - which is funnier and more accurate that the F word- and Laura Ingraham is funny - and serious - and she is a heck of a lot more intelligent than Ann. |
|
"Are conservative bloggers going to relay their true thoughts to their readers, or are they more interested in gaining the approval of their fellow bloggers?"
Right, because it couldn't possibly be their honest reaction. How can you be a conservative and not clap your hands with glee at every jewel-like utterance from Ann Coulter's mouth? |
|
What did I write that made you think I disagree with their conclusion? I asked a question based on an observation. The thought struck me that bloggers may be checking what their peers were saying before they posted their own thoughts.
I thought it odd when I checked about ten sites that all pretty much stated the same thing, two linked other sites, and two used the exact phrase "attention wh*re" in describing her. I would like the bloggers I read to have original thoughts and not just parrot others - not just on this issue, but on others as well. FYI: Michelle Malkin is the first site I visit every day. |
|
|
"Why did all these bloggers wake up this morning and say the sun was yellow?" Maybe something can be so self-evident that more than one person has the same idea about it. |
|
One conservative blogger who Ann's comment didn't sail right over the head of is Curt at Flopping Aces - http://www.floppingaces.net/
He recognized the cultural reference in Ann's remark to Grey's Anatomy star, Isaiah Washington, who used the word "faggot" twice in reference to co-star T.R. Knight. Knight later publicly "came out" when word broke out about the on-set scuffle the two actors had.
Washington announced that he would check into rehab for psychological evaluation following the controversy over his remark about Knight.
As Curt points out, Ann discussed this on FNC about a month ago. But once again, most of the right wing of the blogosphere felt compelled to quick-post a knee-jerk reaction (just like their counterparts in the MSM!), rather than doing a little investigative research into the matter, like any good JOUR 101 student would.
Oh, well... at least Curt "gets it." The rest of you guys need to back away a little and gain some perspective. |
|
No one can top Hugh Hewitt for engaging interviews of great book authors. I’ve posted some of these at my own website. Specifically, the more recent Thomas Barnett and Andrew Roberts broadcasts come to mind.
So here’s my challenge to you, Mr. Hewitt. Read Larry Kramer’s 1978, non-abridged edition of, The Faggots, and interview the author. Here is the comment regarding the book from Answers.com.
“Kramer's first novel about the gay community on New York's Fire Island receives a poor initial reception. However, when re-released [abridged] in 1987, it would become a bestseller, hailed as a work of historic importance for its unsparingly HONEST PORTRAYAL OF THE GAY COMMUNITY." [Brackets and capital emphasis mine.]
According to you Mr. Hewitt, "There's nothing wrong with a gay person" (interview with Thomas Edsall, 10/3/2006). So do us a favor and accept my challenge. Dispel this so-called bigotry you perceive in Ann Coulter. Read The Faggots and then interview Mr. Kramer regarding the contents of his book…ON THE AIR!
|
|
|
Not only a clumsy analogy but dismissive of an honest question. My question is directed not only to the story of Ann Coulter, but about bloggers' reactions to issues in general. Are they being honest with us, or do they look to their peers for approval before writing? I don't know the answer, however, my concern is if it is true, you will become just like the MSM - all in lockstep with one another. |
|
|
|
...Rudy and mitt would denounce her, Mccain, I'm surprised. He tends to have the Coulter-fear that most of these posters here have.
You all are afraid of her....LOL |
|
His (I think) distinction makes clear a core problem for conservatives -- he says anyone can be gay -- it is a behavior -- but one is born black. This is nonsense. People are born gay -- it is not different. But people think it is ok to mock or attack gays, because they think it is a chosen "lifestyle." If it were really something one could chose to be or not to be, who would choose to live as a second-class citizen? Who would choose to be forbidden from serving their country in the military? Who would choose to live in a country in which his life might be in danger because of that "choice"?
People can whine about the PC police, but it is just a question of decency. Do you love others as you would be loved yourself, or do you hate them for the way they were born? Because accepting slurs against them is choosing the latter. |
|
I give her points for being current, but it's still a stupid thing to say during a conference with the guys who are running for president.
"Not only a clumsy analogy but dismissive of an honest question."
Oh well. That's my honest answer. I tend to impute good faith on others unless they show me otherwise, so I assume it's not peer pressure making people be mean to Ann Coulter. |
|
|
I wish that Ann hadn't said it or even thought it, but Hugh (Schwarzenegger's state sommelier) is overreacting again. |
|
|
I haven't been reading blogs for long, but would imagine most bloggers have written something they will eventually regret. It's hard to imagine some haven't used the word faggot, the other "f" word, denigrated a religion, made ethnic slurs, etc., even if it was satirical. Is there a difference between bloggers writing about such things vs someone saying the same thing in a speech? Both have an audience, it's just that one is physically present, the other isn't. Bloggers would do well to research what they've written in the past before passing judgment on others. |
|
|
Thanks, Hugh. There is too much toleration on the Right for offensive people who happen to be anti-Left (Coulter, Savage). (Obviously, the same is true on the Left). Their kind of talk ought to be banished by any decent person or group. The psychosis of such people, of course, is that now they portray themselves as lonely, heroic, Galt-like voices of truth in a sea of lies. Truly sick, truly repulsive. |
|
Hugh's Politically Correct Stomach Throttles His Brain
Hugh, you are once again over-reacting. You've chosen the polically correct response -- throw Ann under the bus at the first sign of controversey. I beleive it reflects a desperate personal need to get the GOP back in power. I think your targeting is off due to some over-compensation for your predictions during the last general election.
There is no way that Ann C. should be put in the same, lame camp as Micheal Richards. They
are only similar upon first glance. Duh, Hugh. If you're going to blog, you're going to need to provide more in-depth analysis than just reading Michelle Malkin's site - though MM does have some great material.
While Ann's statements were controversial, let's face reality. She was making a biting joke! She was smiling when she said it, she said it in the context of the issue of going to rehab as the left's form of penance or redemption. Furthermore she's on target with Edwards.
Let's face it, Ann nailed Edwards. He was sunk before. He's even more sunk now. Edwards has demonstrated how spineless he is. Recall his behavior when upon discovering that the bloggers working for him were stridant anti-catholic biggots and that their biggotry was long held and long asserted. John Edwards started to fire them as most rational non-biggoted people would. Then he demonstrated all the fortitude of a styrofoam cup when he caved to the objections of the Left. He has consistently lied about stem cell research. And Edwards spends all-together too much time preen himself and worrying about his hair. Hmmmmm. Let's see -- preens his hair all-together too much -- hairstylist tendencies -- lack of spine --
What's the venacular that is used to describe that? Did Ann nail it or what? And with both barrels!
Really Hugh's response is just another form of censorship and group think. Ann's entitled to her opinions, however controversial and harshly spoken they may be.
And I think Hugh is just a teeny bit jealous of Ann. Did it just slip out?
|
|
Ms Coulter dresses like a tart... is of childbearing age yet is not married...
Irrespective of the 'faggot' remark, why would any civilized conservative, especially Christian conservative, find her anything but repellant? |
|
Hmm... use the word "faggot" while telling a joke is according to Hugh an 'invitation to hate'. Talk about Hysterical overreaction. I'm sure Andrew Sullivan and Al Franken agree. Maybe Hewitt can get a spot on Olbermann to attack her.
In her Q&A she stated she loved Gays she was simply against Gay Marriage. Later, she stated she wouldn't "...insult Gays by comparing them to John Edwards".
Hugh, please stop being such a PC suckup. BTW, are you still calling Tom Tancredo a "racist" and a "Nativist"? |
|
|
Ann was being Ann in a big way. Ironically, the histrionic reaction to her comments is the spirit of the reeducation camp she jokingly thought she would avoid by NOT calling Edwards a faggot. Of course, Edwards is not a homosexual. Some people just come across as (the e-word). Not that there's---brush, brush, brush---anything wrong with that. |
|
Is it alright for Edwards, a man running to be my President, having people on his staff currently, who have slurred me, my family, and millions of others Catholics? You bet, if you are a Demoncrat or media wing Republican.
But, "batten down the PC hatches" if an individual, known for a career in wit and self-promotion, NOT running for President, throws out some acid to a group that won't really care anyway.
Stay on your high horse and vote for perverted, "dink in mouth", fantasizer's, like Jim Webb for President, that should make you feel better, it did last November.
|
|
|
Who told you guys (sensitive, caring Republicans) that it is not nice to fight back? It was the new york times, and the democrat Party that’s who. And you all bought it! Well I didn’t buy it and Ann didn’t buy it, and when the democrats claw scratch and punch us we are going to strike back. You guys can just sit back and put a pc cloth to your bloody noses and feel superior if you want. You may think it is attractive to offer hugs and kisses to those who attack US I for one do NOT. Hurrah for Ann the only effective counter puncher we have. One more thought….I think you, the offended, have given Ann a bad case of the giggles at your little outrages. You simply did not get it…A faggot is a bunch of little sticks in a disorganized bundle….She let you all complete the sentence and you all got it wrong…I feel a little giggle coming on my self….. |
|
Hugh is absolutely right. It's time to put away childish things, like thinking presidential politics is a Vegas comedy act. Lets get over ourselves. It's not about being "politically correct" or being sent to reeducation camps. It's about acting like a responsible, respectful adult. The nation is waching what is said and done during these events and gauging whether Republicans are the kind of people they should entrust with national leadership. Having Coulter there doing her sick schtick isn't going to give America the warm fuzzy feeling that Republicans are taking the responsibilities of governance seriously.
Have you all forgotten the last election results so soon? Or are you all just addicted to the political theater? This isn't a Sim game where you get to live vicariously through some avatar, it's real life. Get real. Coulter is boor and a crackpot. She has no place in a serious political party.
And let's drop all this censorship posturing. There are no censors, no reeducation camps. It's called "freedom of association". She can spew all she wants to her heart's content, but noone owes her a forum. |
|
The Leftists are free to say anything and we're to just take it; but we're to muzzle ourselves.
How dimmi of you.
No going silently to the shearer for this sheep. We need more people willing to call a spade a spade...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. |
|
Coulter often reminds us that whenever Leftists have real power they round up their enemies & mass exterminate them.
100 million in the 20th century.
Congratulations Hugh & Dean for stepping forward to help organize the cattle cars & firing squads. |
|
What Michael Richards was obviously racist, and creepy with the the whole fork in the butt metaphor. I'm not sure how this Hewitt buffoon can compare what Coulter said to what Michael Richards said. Coulter was referring to the fact that Edwards is kind of girlie...the guy gets manicures.
Michael Richards seemed to be forgiven when he went on Letterman's show and bashed the war in Iraq and the response to Katrina. If Coulter does that, will she also be forgiven by uptight conservatives like Dean and Hewitt, or even yet, the leftist lynch mob who hates Coulter just b/c she's pro-life and anti-high taxes. |
|
Since we're all being so frank here, allow me to echo the sentiments of some before me that - given a choice between attending a live appearance of Coulter or Hewitt - I would choose Coulter every time.
Assuming that they want to maximize exposure, entertainment and profit, anyone organizing such an event would most likely choose Coulter over Hewitt - if forced to choose by Hugh's boycott. Jealousy?
Mind you, I'm a die-hard Hewitt radio show fan. Even though Hugh's been dropped in Salt Lake City, I continue to listen faithfully over the Internet because his is the very best interview and media-criticism show on the air. By a mile.
But - me humbly suggests - Hewitt's fatal flaw is that he values respectability (as defined by the Left) more than he values clarity & honesty.
The best example is Hugh's denouncement of Coulter over the Jersey Girls comment in her latest mega best selling book. (Jealousy?)
While polemical, Coulter's observation that the Left hides behind victims so as to pre-empt and prevent honest debate is completely true!
Examples abound! Wheelchair-bound Ron Kovic as iconic Vietnam war protestor. Grieving pathetic Cindy Sheehan as the only mother of a fallen soldier given any media exposure - immune from criticism because of her "moral authority", Maureen Dowd tells us. Columbine as the closure of 2nd Amendment discussion. etc.
Hugh knows this. Yet when the Left squawked over the Jersey Girls truism, Hugh followed the Left's lead by repeatedly skewering and denying Coulter publicly.
Regarding Coulter's latest truism (the Left re-educates dissenters) Hewitt sensed that the Left was about to throw another hissy fit and charge any who support her with "disrespectability."
Thus Hewitt again hangs Ann out to dry and stays in good standing with those on the Left he so needs to impress.
I would rather be clear and correct than "respectable" as defined by the Left. Judging from the comments, Hugh, so would the majority of your readers. |
|
She's not deep or insightful, she's funny. That's what she does. She's Don Rickles for the new millenium and a conservative twist. She's Lenny Bruce with good legs. She's very good at what she does - but setting the conservative agenda is NOT what she does!
She made a joke about Edwards being effeminate. Watch the hair brushing tape - he is effiminate. She could have called him a fop, or effeminate, or even a girly man - but by bringing in the Grey's Anatomy reference it made for a double punchline.
I find it hard to believe that anyone, right or left, takes her seriously. Are we so pressed for deep thinking that she is all we can find?
If you want deep thought, go read VDH. If you want political insight, go read Powerline, or Politico, even Dick Morris. Don't read Ann. She'd tell you the same thing. |
|
Why are those who support rampant homosexuality upset at this? |
|
TSat writes: Sunday, March, 04, 2007 1:41 PM
Because she's funny.
She's not deep or insightful, she's funny. That's what she does. She's Don Rickles for the new millenium and a conservative twist. She's Lenny Bruce with good legs. She's very good at what she does - but setting the conservative agenda is NOT what she does!
She made a joke about Edwards being effeminate. Watch the hair brushing tape - he is effiminate. She could have called him a fop, or effeminate, or even a girly man - but by bringing in the Grey's Anatomy reference it made for a double punchline.
I find it hard to believe that anyone, right or left, takes her seriously. Are we so pressed for deep thinking that she is all we can find?
DR. Tesla:
She has written several best-selling books that were all extremely well written with logic. She is the most popular conservative columnist. How an you say nobody takes her seriously? Everything she says is overanalyzed. You seem to suggest she isn't that intelligent, but how many books hav you sold? Who reads your columns? You think Dick Morris is intelligent, and he's just a Democrat who has a vendetta against the Clintons because they treated him like crap. He has said that Hillary can't be beat in 2008...who the hell believes that? She's the most unlikable Democrat ever to run for president. I don't that I have ever heard her laugh geniunely about anything. You are like most of the dull conservatives...you think political viewpoints have to be presented in a dry mundane way...it annoys you that Coulter and Rush can both be funny and the most effective conservative pundits today. |
|
I'm totally disgusted with the whole bunch of you. What is this, "Ann dissed the 'GAY' community"? There is NO GAY Community. There is a group of HOMOSEXUAL individuals with a perception of themselves as victims everytime some heterosexual individual refuses to kiss their collective arses.
When I was growing up, gay meant happy and glad. today it is perverted into homosexual.
In the meantime, the conservative people want to commit hari-kari or draw and quarter an outstanding person who elequently speaks to things they are afraid to mention.
Oh, yes let's hang Ann, Michelle, Dick Armey, Rush, and anyone else who might accidently prevent us from kissing up to our ENEMIES, the left wing nuts. Then when we have gotten rid of all our defenders, we can bend over and kiss our own arses goodby, because they don't ever stop.
By the way, IT IS A FELONY TO CALL FOR THE MURDER OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. Perhaps one of you would like to try prefering charges against those who do.
|
|
|
When I was in high school, there was an english teacher that everybody knew was a lesbian. A very bright high school student wrote a paper in her class in which he stated his opinion that homosexuality is immoral. He was not mean in the paper...he did not put down gay people personally or use slurs. The lesbian teacher actually wrote him up fo this paper. The princiapal ended up lettimg it go because it was obvious the lesbian professor was a nazi who didn't want to read any opinions that offended her even if the opinion is a legitimate one. |
|
When Ann Coulter first came on the scene I appreciated her wit and took vicarious pleasure in her barbs. It’s now a few years down the road and, for the most part, her acerbic style has worn thin on me. In my experience of her, she overuses the shtick.
That said, this particular incident is rather mild, and the criticisms seem, generally, to be missing the point (as some have herein noted). It was a very clever case of “killing two birds with one stone” which she couldn’t have accomplished without employing the word in question.
Yes, it may be more appropriate to refer to John Edwards as effeminate, or a fop or a dandy, as it would avoid the perception that one is actually accusing him of being gay—maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. In any case, she saw an opportunity to make use of Edwards’ dandyism as segue to a further point about the potential consequences of politically incorrect speech, and for that purpose she needed to push the language envelope on Edwards a bit. That’s all.
Further, I concur with the observation that this is what Ann does. This is common knowledge and there’s no excuse for anyone who asks her to appear at an event to claim ignorance—or to feel that somehow 'they' should be immune. In that vein, I’m OK with HH taking the position that he would rather not appear in association with her—that’s his prerogative. On the other hand, that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no place for her under the conservative tent. |
|
Jesus also told them this parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?” Luke 6:39
Is it possible that the high number of posts to both Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett’s comments regarding Ann Coulter reflect an indignation toward a perceived moral arrogance by Mr. Hewitt for seeking to publicly define the “bounds of decency” on the arbitrary basis of political correctness?
In Mr. Hewitt’s 10/3/2006 interview with former Washington Post senior political writer Thomas Edsall, Mr. Edsall stated, “There's nothing wrong with a gay person in my book,” to which Mr. Hewitt responds, “I agree, completely, 100%.”
How is it that Mr. Hewitt can reject the conservative tenets of biblical revelation, Catholic natural law, as well as the Pope’s statements, and still be considered a arch-conservative in the public square?
|
|
republicans such as Hugh & Dean (sounds like a good name for a gay boy band LOL) not being able to get a crass joke delivered by Ms. Coulter.
How Ann's comments ever became such a hot topic is beyond me. Anyone with common sense can listen to the Coulter clip and know she is doing nothing more than tossing a flamethrower of a joke. |
|
Spot on...cherio o...carry on...pip pip...well done...God save the queen(Ann).
Thanks for the truth PierreLegrand
Dr.T in SD |
|
I can see that the lesbian English teacher deserved to be fired -- not because she was a lesbian; not because she was overtly political; but because she taught you (and presumably passed you), and your English is terrible. For example, it is not "there was an English teacher that..."; it should read, "there was an English tacher who...."
There is nothing worse than an English teacher (or any teacher) who lets his or her students graduate despite being essentially illiterate. |
|
Since when did "The F-word" start meaning "Faggot"? And for that matter since when did it start becoming unacceptable to use? Did it become taboo sometime vbetween the fourth and fifth seasons of Will & Grace or something? Just yesterday I happened to be watching Mel Brook's silent movie, "Silent Movie" in which one of the gags involves a woman walking in on Jamees Caan, Brooks, and his associates, lying in a heap eliciting her to cry (via the title card) "Faggots!" I was stupendously unoffended.
Who decided to appoint the national media the dirty-word Gestapo? Don't we have liberal government agencies for that? Now I think Ann Coulter is just as crazy as the next guy but there are a heckuvalot of other things one can talk about. Who cares what she said, the people who she offended can take that issue up with her on their own time. So Hugh, as much as my Dad loves your radio show get a life, grow a spine, and if you need to calm down maybe you should go outside and smoke a fa$. |
|
|
Look, there are plenty of normal Americans, who do not subscribe to her use of the f-word to denote homosexuals; it is customarily used to mean copulate. What makes the f-word particularly distasteful is what male homosexuals do to each other to include the f-word. Her use of the f-word is an excellent substitute for gays. These people should be pitied and seek professional help as their batteries are upside down. |
|
|
You compare her to Richards, which is assinine. Cliff Kincaid also joined the PC Parade with a complete off-the-wall comparison to Brittany (No Pants) Spears! Both of you offend me deeply. So, what does that make you? Right! Apologists and cut and run PC surrender monkeys. If Edwards is not an effeminate lawyer getting rich off class-action lawsuits and Ambulance chasing, then I am not nuanced enough to appreciate your sensitivity to his problems. He gives off the epitome of sissydom, to put it bluntly. And that is HIS problem, not mine and not Ann Coulter's. I am STILL offended! Even after writing this response. I demand an apology! Heh! |
|
|
Come on now Hugh, Ann had the courage to say what people are thinking!! The high road gets you beat in elections. Now all the P.C. crowd in the republican party will fall all over themselves to see who can be the most distraught over her remarks.Stand up, say what you feel. I vote for people who speak their minds and stand by the statements they make. When the Dems fight dirty the republicans must reply in kind. until now they have not and they paid in 06. |
|
Hugh...
You represent a thinker... a conservative who is willing to listen to different sides of an issue, who will carry on a civil discourse with someone on the other side, who will count them (and rightly so) among your friends. No doubt, your Christmas card list must be long.
I also don't like Ann Coulter, and I find others to pander to the same ilk. Perhaps it is a way not to think deeply about the issues and to help construct a stronger America. |
|
|
|