Re: You _have_ to admire her
volkfolk
"No one's noticed" <Mark....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172942599.0...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> ability to get grab a headline:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8&mode=related&search=
>
Boy, everytime I think she has hit a new low in class, she surprises me
What a cunt.
Scot
theothr1
"No one's noticed" < wrote..
: ability to get grab a headline:
:
-- - -
for intolerance.
Richard Morris
"No one's noticed" <Mark....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172942599.0...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
No, I don't have to.
What we have to be concerned about is that there are media sources that
consider her to be newsworthy.
Peter_Wimsey
> ability to get grab a headline:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8&mode=related&search=
Wow, that's just gross and offensive.
N
dwolf
admiration!!!
"No one's noticed" <Mark....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172942599.0...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Rugby Dan
Walter Karmazyn
I watched the whole day of this event on cspan. They had a few of the
repub presidential hopefuls speaking, and that kind of stuff interests
me. This was the memorable vitrol of her talk, there was more, go watch
the whole thing @ cspan. She seemed sort of positive about Mitt Romney
(after listening to lengthy speech, I'm not impressed with him), but
Romney, McCain and Giuliani have denounced her for her remarks. So here
I offer this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLJDrsaJmk
This event was called the Conservative Political Action Conference,
which had the likes of our VP and numerous other bigwigs in attendance
or speaking. How warmly this overgrown scarecrow's remarks were received
(watch it @ cspan) speaks volumes about the sewer the most influential
and active so called "conservatives" crawled out of.
W
Peter_Wimsey
<tthomas@[REMOVE_TO_REPLY]ogre.net> wrote:
> No one's noticed wrote:
> > ability to get grab a headline:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8&mode=related&search=
>
> regularly spouted by the left (and not necessarily the far left, either).
Please do give us an example of the so-called left calling a
presidential contender a "faggot" (notwithstanding the hiney-sex story
somebody posted above).
N
man can't believe nobody got the WIIAAHSWYP!
Ken Fortenberry
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8&mode=related&search=
>
> FWIW, what she said isn't any more offensive or hate-filled than what's
> regularly spouted by the left (and not necessarily the far left, either).
Name one left-wing pundit/commentator/author who is both influential
enough to be invited to the Democratic equivalent of the CPAC and
crass enough to go on the record with that kind of offensive slur.
--
Ken Fortenberry
JerseyMike
wrote:
The biggest problems with far-left libs is they don't want to debate
about anything. They make a lot of noise about this and that but never
offer any REAL solutions to anything! So instead they attempt to
stifle FREE speech!
If you're wondering where the Commies in America hide out...look no
further than the Democratic party.
Edwards is a faggot!
Cheers
Peter_Wimsey
this one, as is the press. The press is NOT ignoring the event though;
NPR just did a spot on it as a legitamate read on the conservative's
choices. So, somehow it is acceptable to this bunch for a speaker just
to throw hate speech around. I mean, Edwards isn't even gay, nor does
he support gay marriage? Is she making fun of North Carolinian's
accent?
Look, other than Al Franken, I haven't really kept up with left-
leaning pundits. But I don't think any of them would just throw around
this kind of talk so casually, would not use that kind of hateful
language, and anything close would be with an ironic point to make.
For example, calling a Republican a fascist doesn't debase any
currently mainstream social group, but does summarize a pattern of
domestic wiretapping, illegal imprisonment and torture, curbing of
free speech, unmanaged cronyism, and unilateral military invasions...
See, it feels good to rant without making racist and homophobic
slurs....
N
Ken Fortenberry
Uh huh, so you can't name even one. That's what I thought.
--
Ken Fortenberry
neurodancer
> http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/
>
> http://backinanncoultersasssaddleagain.blogspot.com/
>
>
Very funny stuff, hilarious even. Thanks for the laugh.
ND
Ray
> The biggest problems with far-left libs is they don't want to debate
>
> Edwards is a faggot!
I love irony.
> Edwards is a faggot!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Joe
> The biggest problems with far-left libs is they don't want to debate
> about anything. They make a lot of noise about this and that but never
> offer any REAL solutions to anything! So instead they attempt to
> stifle FREE speech!
It's for their own good.
After all, when republican speak, only lies come out. Vile, disgusting
lies. So, by silencing their offensive speak, it's doing every one a
favor.
Q: How can yoy tell someone is a republican?
A: They have the blood of innocent Iraqi babies on their hands.
Joe
Neil X.
>
> It's no different than Whoopi Goldberg's comments at Kerry's Radio City
> Music Hall fundraiser, or what Janeane Garofalo's been doing in her act
> for years.
Really? Those two have been using bigoted slurs in their rhetoric??
Got any specific quotes to back that up?
Peace,
Neil X.
kpn...@yahoo.com
<tthomas@[REMOVE_TO_REPLY]ogre.net> wrote:
> Neil X. wrote:
> >> Ted wrote:
>
> >> It's no different than Whoopi Goldberg's comments at Kerry's Radio City
> >> Music Hall fundraiser, or what Janeane Garofalo's been doing in her act
> >> for years.
>
> > Really? Those two have been using bigoted slurs in their rhetoric??
>
> words that cause people displeasure.
>
> --
> of·fen·sive
> Pronunciation: \?-?fen(t)-siv, especially for 1 ?ä-?fen(t)-, ?o?-\
> Function: adjective
> Date: circa 1564
>
> 1 a: making attack : aggressive b: of, relating to, or designed for
> attack <offensive weapons> c: of or relating to an attempt to score in a
> game or contest; also : of or relating to a team in possession of the
> ball or puck
>
> 2: giving painful or unpleasant sensations : nauseous, obnoxious <an
> offensive odor>
>
> 3: causing displeasure or resentment <offensive remarks>
> --
>
> Not only was I not talking about bigotry, I wasn't talking specifically
> about political commentators, just people on the left.
>
> As I replied to Peter:
>
> [...people on the left can refer to those on the right as "cunts,"
> "nazis," etc, and nobody bats an eye. Someone from the right refers
> someone on the left as a faggot, and people come unglued.
>
> All she did was show (yet again) that she can be as crass as the next
> person and, as long as people keep reacting to her, there'll be a
> microphone waiting for her.
>
> I'm not condoning what she said, nor am I condemning it. It was
> something that was said to get a reaction. If you reacted, then
> congrats. Mission accomplished.]
>
> To reiterate (for the final time), Coulter was doing her shtick.
> Nothing more. It got the desired results -- a few yuks from those in
> attendance and a train load of free publicity for herself as soon as the
> press got wind of what she said.
What I don't get is that calling Edwards a faggot is not even remotely
applicable so it must have been solely for shock value which is what
you have been asserting all along. Everyone is hung up on the "Edwards
is a faggot" part, but really the focus should be on why do you
(Coulter)
think he is a faggot? I mean really. He is a pretty boy, but there is
nothing
sketchy (a la Haggard) to even suggest he is gay. Does he act gay?
What is gay?
I agree that 99% of the follks on this thread have played right into
Coulter's hands. Remember to follow the money, that's what really
matters to pundits.
Kurt
Peter_Wimsey
> I agree that 99% of the follks on this thread have played right into
> Coulter's hands. Remember to follow the money, that's what really
> matters to pundits.
>
> Kurt
I suppose your right to a certain extent, and its why the press is
ignoring *her*. But I still return to the fact that a recognized body
of political activists finds the performance acceptable.
N
JimK
If all women were like Ann Coulter, all men would be
"faggots"......except DG, of course.
JimK
Neil X.
>
> I didn't say anything about bigotry. I said "offensive"
What you said was that Ann's quote was "not any more offensive or hate-
filled" than what mainstream left wingers say. Then you said "it's no
different than Whoopi Goldberg's comments at Kerry's Radio City Music
Hall fundraiser, or what Janeane Garofalo's been doing in her act for
years."
Now you're changing your story, you are saying it IS in fact
qualitatively different, because you can't point to any bigoted
statements from Whoopi or Jeneane. I challenge you to supply quotes
from the Radio Music Hall fundraiser that are "just as offensive and
hate-filled" as Ann's bigotry. Please do.
> Everybody loves free speech until they hear something that offends them...
Oh please. I can hear the tiny violins playing in the background.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you have the right to be free from
criticism when you say dumbass things.
No one is saying Ann doesn't have a right to free speech. Just as she
has the right to spout bigoted spew if she wants to, anyone who finds
it offensive has a right to say she is a bigot.
Peace,
Neil X.l
JerseyMike
> JerseyMike <mork4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The biggest problems with far-left libs is they don't want to debate
> > about anything. They make a lot of noise about this and that but never
> > offer any REAL solutions to anything! So instead they attempt to
> > stifle FREE speech!
>
> It's for their own good.
>
> After all, when republican speak, only lies come out. Vile, disgusting
> lies. So, by silencing their offensive speak, it's doing every one a
> favor.
>
Thanks Joe. At least you admit you're an apostle of Communism.
Cheers
Joe
> Thanks Joe. At least you admit you're an apostle of Communism.
I did?
I thought all I did was point out that republicans are pathetically and
homicidally insane.
Joe
bradish
"The Lord of Eltingville" <tthomas@[REMOVE_TO_REPLY]ogre.net> wrote in
message news:esd4l...@news2.newsguy.com...
> No one's noticed wrote:
>> ability to get grab a headline:
>>
>
>
> FWIW, what she said isn't any more offensive or hate-filled than what's
> regularly spouted by the left (and not necessarily the far left, either).
And who cares what she says? It can only help the dems. Hope she spews
forth more crapola..
Ray
> What I don't get is that calling Edwards a faggot is not even remotely
> applicable so it must have been solely for shock value which is what
> you have been asserting all along. Everyone is hung up on the "Edwards
> is a faggot" part, but really the focus should be on why do you
> (Coulter) think he is a faggot? I mean really.
Maybe Coulter is the Borat of the Republican Party. Just as Borat
exposes the specter of racism and homophobia lurking just under the
thin veneer of kindness and decency of some segments of American
society, Coulter does the same with the core establishment of today's
Republican Party which convenes annually at the Conservative Political
Action Conference. Like Borat, Coulter lures them in slowly, making
only semi-offensive comments and 'jokes' at first, then when she's
gained their trust as one of 'them' she throws in a truly bigoted and
disgusting comment or 'joke' and waits for them to take the bait,
which they invariably do. At last year's CPAC she got them with
calling Arabs "ragheads," and this year it was her "faggot" smear
against Edwards - those self-described "conservatives" who represent
the core of today's Republicans Party at CPAC ate it up and laughed
and laughed. Bigoted humor never was so funny... yuck, yuck, yuck.
And Coulter's Borating of the CPACers is of course speading like a
meme through her devoted parrot-minions... even here on rmgd we've now
got a guy saying "Edwards is a faggot!" The parroting of bigoted
slurs... yuck, yuck, yuck.
Coulter knows her audience and her timing is impeccable - after the
Foley, Haggart, etc., scandals that have rocked the core of today's
Repbulcan Party CPAC-type Repubs are no-doubt feeling more than a wee
bit nervous and uneasy about all of the "faggots" right in the center
of their establishment. As such Coulter knew that her base was primed
for a public expression of their homophobia - it helps them repress
their own homosexual tendencies and keep their Party 'pure,'
dontchaknow.
Pepe Papon
<tthomas@[REMOVE_TO_REPLY]ogre.net> wrote:
>Neil X. wrote:
>>> Ted wrote:
>>>
>>> It's no different than Whoopi Goldberg's comments at Kerry's Radio City
>>> Music Hall fundraiser, or what Janeane Garofalo's been doing in her act
>>> for years.
>>
>>
>> Really? Those two have been using bigoted slurs in their rhetoric??
>
>I didn't say anything about bigotry. I said "offensive," as in using
>words that cause people displeasure.
You said it's no different from Whoopi or Janeane. Clearly, it's
different.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
neurodancer
That was a very interesting take on her, I hadn't previously
considered the Borat analogy and the calculated manipulation of her
target audience. Of course, maybe she's just a faggot hating redneck
at heart herself.
ND
DGDevin
news:1173133570.2...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> At last year's CPAC she got them with
> calling Arabs "ragheads," and this year it was her "faggot" smear
> against Edwards - those self-described "conservatives" who represent
> the core of today's Republicans Party at CPAC ate it up and laughed
> and laughed. Bigoted humor never was so funny... yuck, yuck, yuck.
At some point do we demonstrate our superiorty to AC by noting that some
Republicans aren't laughing and have condemned her, or would that spoil our
self-righteous fun?
> As such Coulter knew that her base was primed
> for a public expression of their homophobia - it helps them repress
> their own homosexual tendencies and keep their Party 'pure,'
> dontchaknow.
You must do great at poker games what with knowing what's in other people's
heads like that.
DGDevin
news:1173139121.1...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> That was a very interesting take on her, I hadn't previously
> considered the Borat analogy and the calculated manipulation of her
> target audience. Of course, maybe she's just a faggot hating redneck
> at heart herself.
> ND
Coulter and Limbaugh and Moore and all the rest have figured out how to
become filthy rich telling their audiences what they want to hear, and they
know that nothing pleases that audience more than outraging the opposition,
it is money in the bank for these lightning-rod "commentators." Trying to
look for a deeper meaning than that might be fun, but the process produces
more light than heat. Or is that more heat than light? Whatever, the point
being that Coulter used that word about as casually as the conductor of an
orchestra uses his baton, and here most of us are playing the tune she wants
to hear played.
Ray
> "Ray" <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173133570.2...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> > At last year's CPAC she got them with
> > calling Arabs "ragheads," and this year it was her "faggot" smear
> > against Edwards - those self-described "conservatives" who represent
> > the core of today's Republicans Party at CPAC ate it up and laughed
> > and laughed. Bigoted humor never was so funny... yuck, yuck, yuck.
>
> At some point do we demonstrate our superiorty to AC by noting that some
> Republicans aren't laughing and have condemned her, or would that spoil our
> self-righteous fun?
After the disgusting stuff Coulter said last year even Chunk was
maintaining that she would not be invited back to CPAC. And yet there
she was, once again a featured speaker sharing the podium along with
Cheney, etc. And she makes ugly comments and 'jokes' similar to that
one all the time - that she'd make such an ugly comment at this year's
CPAC, were she invited and featured -- as she always is -- was fully
predictable.
Coulter isn't some Churchill Ward-esque professor whom no one ever
heard of before his dumbass 9/11 comment - she's a center star of, and
is promoted and supported by, today's Republican Party.
> > As such Coulter knew that her base was primed
> > for a public expression of their homophobia - it helps them repress
> > their own homosexual tendencies and keep their Party 'pure,'
> > dontchaknow.
>
> You must do great at poker games what with knowing what's in other people's
> heads like that.
You don't think the CPAC-type Repubs are uneasy about the Folly and
Haggart scandals, and in part because it exposed "faggot" leaders
amongst their midst?
Richard Morris
"JerseyMike" <mork...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173111840.3...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Communism? Well, isn't that quaint ... we get accused of being stuck in the
60s on this newsgroup from time to time. Interesting to see someone who is
stuck in the 50s.
volkfolk
"The Lord of Eltingville" <tthomas@[REMOVE_TO_REPLY]ogre.net> wrote in
message news:esd4l...@news2.newsguy.com...
> No one's noticed wrote:
>> ability to get grab a headline:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8&mode=related&search=
>
>
> FWIW, what she said isn't any more offensive or hate-filled than what's
> regularly spouted by the left (and not necessarily the far left, either).
That's true, but it doesn't make her any less of a cunt.
Scot
volkfolk
"Peter_Wimsey" <nic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172970237.4...@i80g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 3, 7:42 pm, The Lord of Eltingville
> <tthomas@[REMOVE_TO_REPLY]ogre.net> wrote:
>> No one's noticed wrote:
>> > ability to get grab a headline:
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8&mode=related&search=
>>
>> FWIW, what she said isn't any more offensive or hate-filled than what's
>> regularly spouted by the left (and not necessarily the far left, either).
>
> presidential contender a "faggot" (notwithstanding the hiney-sex story
> somebody posted above).
>
> N
>
> man can't believe nobody got the WIIAAHSWYP!
>
volkfolk
Bill Maher suggesting that it was too bad that the bombers in Afghanistan
not getting Dick Cheney would be a prime example
Scot
volkfolk
> On Mar 3, 8:15 pm, Ken Fortenberry <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The biggest problems with far-left libs is they don't want to debate
> about anything. They make a lot of noise about this and that but never
> offer any REAL solutions to anything! So instead they attempt to
> stifle FREE speech!
>
> further than the Democratic party.
>
> Edwards is a faggot!
And you're a nitwit
Scot
volkfolk
Ever hear of Al Franken? You need look no further than Al Franken's book
"Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat, idiot" to see that AC hasn't cornered the
market on inflamatory name calling.
Scot
DGDevin
> Coulter isn't some Churchill Ward-esque professor whom no one ever
> heard of before his dumbass 9/11 comment - she's a center star of, and
> is promoted and supported by, today's Republican Party.
Did my question seem not worth answering?
Did prominent Republicans including McCain, Romney and Guiliani condemn her
remarks, or is that simply irrelevant? Did the president of a group that
helped sponsor the conference say, "Ann Coulter not only once again went out
of her way to use a nasty epithet, she pushed her offensiveness up a notch,"
or is that too inconvenient to the depiction of this as all part of the
Republican master plan?
You wouldn't let me sidestep a question like that, is there some reason you
should get away with it?
> You don't think the CPAC-type Repubs are uneasy about the Folly and
> Haggart scandals, and in part because it exposed "faggot" leaders
> amongst their midst?
Ah, but that isn't what you said the first time Ray, you said laughing at
homo jokes helped them repress their own homesexual urges. If some RWNWDH
had made reference to the repressed gay urges of Dem politicians you'd have
been on him like a leopard, so how come you get a free pass on such a cheap
shot?
Making it's the Cipro talking, but this seemed beneath your usual standard
and thus my indignant surprise.
volkfolk
"Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173110700.0...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>> Ted wrote:
>>
>> I didn't say anything about bigotry. I said "offensive"
>
>
> What you said was that Ann's quote was "not any more offensive or hate-
> filled" than what mainstream left wingers say. Then you said "it's no
> different than Whoopi Goldberg's comments at Kerry's Radio City Music
> Hall fundraiser, or what Janeane Garofalo's been doing in her act for
> years."
> Now you're changing your story, you are saying it IS in fact
> qualitatively different, because you can't point to any bigoted
> statements from Whoopi or Jeneane. I challenge you to supply quotes
> from the Radio Music Hall fundraiser that are "just as offensive and
> hate-filled" as Ann's bigotry. Please do.
You will find NOBODY who finds AC more offensive than me. Having said that,
I agree with Ted's observations. There is plenty of bomb throwing coming
from the left. Al Franken does it all the time, starting with "Rush Limbaugh
is a big fat idiot". I found that book to be a completely humorless,
juvenile, retarded and very offensive attempt at political satire
Bill Maher suggested last week that it was "too bad that the bombers missed
Dick Cheney" I find that offensive too.
The Right hasn't cornered the market on offensive, inflamatory rhetoric
>> Everybody loves free speech until they hear something that offends
>> them...
>
>
> Oh please. I can hear the tiny violins playing in the background.
> "Free speech" doesn't mean you have the right to be free from
> criticism when you say dumbass things.
I agree completely.
> No one is saying Ann doesn't have a right to free speech. Just as she
> has the right to spout bigoted spew if she wants to, anyone who finds
> it offensive has a right to say she is a bigot.
I don't know if see is a bigot. I don't think that she necessarily believes
what she said, I think it was, as the subject line of this thread suggests,
a grab for headlines
Scot
volkfolk
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8W2Hh.9678$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
HRYK
Scot
JimK
<tyronethi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ann Coulter isn't very hard to figure out. She craves attention and
she's just smart enough to know that the only way she'll ever get any
is to say outrageous things, whether she believes them or not.
JimK
Richard Morris
"JimK" <jkezwind@comcastDOTnet> wrote in message
news:9hppu212v4fc4jp2a...@4ax.com...
What she craves is money.
R.
Ray
> "Peter_Wimsey" <nick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Please do give us an example of the so-called left calling a
> > presidential contender a "faggot" (notwithstanding the hiney-sex story
> > somebody posted above).
>
> Bill Maher suggesting that it was too bad that the bombers in Afghanistan
> not getting Dick Cheney would be a prime example
Nope. Not only did Maher not call a leading member of a political
party a "faggot" or any other bigoted term, but he didn't say, or even
suggest, that it was "too bad" that the bomber didn't get Cheney last
week.
That is instead a prime example of yet another right-wing attack smear
- the right-wing-disinfosphere is in a froth claiming as much, but
it's not true.
Maher explains:
_____________
On Saturday, the website NewsBusters.org. posted a story under the
headline "Bill Maher Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Dick Cheney
Failed."
There's just one problem: As a fair reading of the show's transcript
makes clear, I never said those words. Still, over the weekend, dozens
of websites, mostly right wing, picked up the story (with headline
intact) thus proliferating the myth that comic Maher somehow advocates
the whacking of our Veep.
Don't get me wrong: I've never joined the Dick Cheney Fan Club. But
what I said Friday -- and what I believe -- is that the Vice President
has presided over a bungled execution of a war in which thousands of
our bravest continue to die. And I believe that were he not in power,
our troops would likely come home sooner. But I don't wish him dead.
Ironically, I made my comments during a discussion about Free Speech,
which is one of the chief reasons that I love my country.
To see a complete transcript from the March 2, 2007 episode of "Real
Time with Bill Maher" go to: www.billmaher.com.
_____________
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/what-i-didnt-say_b_42687.html
Here are the quotes that NewsBusters.org took out of context to make
that "Sorry" claim:
___________________
Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power,
people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)
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.
______________
That last quote "I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more
people would live. That's a fact," sounds damning when taken out of
context. In context, however, it's clear that Maher was saying
exactly what he said above, in a discussion about free speech - about
the right of people to be able to say what they want to, including
that they are sorry that Cheney wasn't assassinated.
Here's the more complete text of the transcript:
_____________________
MAHER: What about the people who got onto the HuffingtonPost - and
these weren't even the bloggers, these were just the "comments"
section - who said they - they expressed regret that the attack on
Dick Cheney failed. [laughter]
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
RIDLEY: More than regret.
MAHER: Well, what did they say? They said they wished-
RIDLEY: They said, we wish he would die. I mean, they were - it was
direct hate language. [voices overlap]
MAHER: Okay, but-
FRANK: [overlapping] They said the bomb was - they said the bomb was
wasted. [laughter] [applause]
MAHER: All right, but, seriously, if this isn't China, shouldn't you
be able to say that? Why did Arianna have to - my girlfriend, I love
her - but why did she take that off right away?
FRANK: [overlapping] Bill, Bill, first of all, you know, it's clearly
not China. You shouldn't trivialize democracy. The fact that we are
talking about if this was China, we couldn't do it. And I don't think
we ought to sort of make this kind of comparison. It's one thing to
say that the administration made a stupid and unfair thing with the -
with the soldiers. It's another saying that makes us China. That's
just not sensible.
As far as the HuffingtonPost is concerned, I gather she decided, as
the person who runs this, that she didn't want to be associated with
it. I think that's her right. People are free to say whatever they
want to say for her. I think the person in charge of the forum can
say, "You know what? I don't want to be associated with that. Say it
somewhere else."
SCARBOROUGH: Well, and not only that, if she had left it up, she would
have opened herself up to attack. She took it down immediately. She
was still attacked by people that took the hate language and tried to
make it stick to her. And obviously, she's trying to build to site
where you can have reasoned debate. And it's probably not in her best
interests to allow that to stay there.
MAHER: But-
RIDLEY: Yeah, I don't think it's about having to take it off. It's
actually trying to be responsible and say, look, you can have a
discourse and dialogue and say - it's one thing to say you hate Dick
Cheney-
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
RIDLEY: [overlapping]-which sort of applies to his politics. It's
another thing to say, "I'm sorry he didn't die in an explosion." And I
think that-
MAHER: But - but, you should be able to say it.
FRANK: [overlapping] You can say it, you can-
MAHER: [overlapping] And, by the way-[voices overlap]-she took it off-
RIDLEY: [overlapping] You can't use any language-
FRANK: [overlapping] Because it's her forum!
RIDLEY: [overlapping] No, it's not. You cannot have language that
incites violence.
FRANK: [overlapping] Excuse me, Bill, 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. [laughter] And I
-
FRANK: [overlapping] But you - you exercise control over the show-
MAHER: [overlapping] But, listen-
FRANK: [overlapping]-the way she does with her blog.
MAHER: [overlapping] But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not
in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. [applause]
RIDLEY: Okay, but-[voices overlap under applause]
SCARBOROUGH: But, let's talk - let's talk about your show for a
second, very quickly. If somebody on this panel said they wished that
Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn't say-
FRANK: I think he did. [laughter]
SCARBOROUGH: Okay, did you say--?
MAHER: No. No, I quoted that.
FRANK: You don't? Oh, you don't believe that?
MAHER: No, I'm just saying that if he did die-
SCARBOROUGH: [laughter] Okay, but if - oh, let's just say-
MAHER: [overlapping]-other people - more people would live. That's a
fact.
SCARBOROUGH: Okay, then - but, let's put it this way then. If somebody
came on here and said that they wished all abortion clinics had been
blown up-
MAHER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: [overlapping]-and you didn't step forward and say, "I
disassociate myself with those remarks," and it just floats out there
in the transcripts, then you're going to be connected with those
words. Arianna Huffington has every right to say, "I don't want to be
associated with this hate language."
MAHER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: "I'm going to take it down from my site so right-wing
talk show hosts aren't going to try to wrap those words around me.
FRANK: And you can say it on your own blog. You can say it elsewhere.
[voices overlap]
SCARBOROUGH: And you'd do the same thing.
MAHER: Okay.
FRANK: You can say it on your own Internet.
RIDLEY: Can't she - can't these individuals express themselves without
going to the furthest extremes? I mean, here's my thing. If you can
actually express what you're going to say-
SCARBOROUGH: No.
RIDLEY: [overlapping]-well, obviously, those individuals can't. But,
what Arianna wants to do - and as disclosure, I blog on Huffington - I
think what she wants to do is actually to try to have some
responsibility in the blogosphere.
MAHER: Okay, I want to show you a little clip from Dick Cheney a
second, but first I want to just say, here was Dick Cheney's quote
today. He said, "Like it or not, the enemy we face in the war on
terror has made Iraq the primary front in that war." Yeah, they made
Iraq the primary - is that not through the looking glass?
Okay, anyway, a lot of people talked about what happened over there in
Afghanistan with Dick Cheney almost getting blown up. Not a lot of
people noticed what he was traveling in. Look at the picture of this-
[slide of airplane]-this is the plane. It's called the "Spirit of
Strom Thurmond." [audience reacts] That's the plane Dick Cheney flies
around in.
_____________________
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/transcripts
Neil X.
>
> I agree with Ted's observations. There is plenty of bomb throwing coming
> from the left. Al Franken does it all the time, starting with "Rush Limbaugh
> is a big fat idiot". I found that book to be a completely humorless,
> juvenile, retarded and very offensive attempt at political satire
Well, you need to be careful about what you are supporting here,
Scot. Ted claimed that remarks equally offensive to the bigoted
statement made by Coulter had been made by lefties at political events
of equivalent status as the CPAC meeting that Coulter gets invited to
speak at every year. He specifically said that Whoopi Goldberg had
made remarks as offensive adnd hate-filled as Coulter's at a Kerry
fundraiser during the 2004 presidential campaign. If you really agree
with that, please supply a quote from Whoopi at this fundraiser that
supports this proposition.
As for Franken, sorry, calling Rush a fat idiot isn't nearly as
offensive as using a bigoted slur. There is no equivalence there.
Peace,
Neil X.
Ray
> "Ray" <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173143597.7...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Coulter isn't some Churchill Ward-esque professor whom no one ever
> > heard of before his dumbass 9/11 comment - she's a center star of, and
> > is promoted and supported by, today's Republican Party.
>
> Did my question seem not worth answering?
Your question:
+ At some point do we demonstrate our superiorty to AC by noting that
some
+ Republicans aren't laughing and have condemned her, or would that
spoil our
+ self-righteous fun?
Was an unwarranted personal attack and so I chose not to address it.
I'm not being "self-righteous" by pointing out - correctly - that the
CPAC crowd laughed enthusiasitcally at her "faggot" smear. Does that
mean that everyone in the audience approved of and applauded her
smear? Of course not. But a large number of them did.
> You wouldn't let me sidestep a question like that, is there some reason you
> should get away with it?
Keep the unwarranted personal attacks out of it and I'll be happy to
address it.
> > You don't think the CPAC-type Repubs are uneasy about the Folly and
> > Haggart scandals, and in part because it exposed "faggot" leaders
> > amongst their midst?
>
> Ah, but that isn't what you said the first time Ray,
Yes, it is.
> you said laughing at
> homo jokes helped them repress their own homesexual urges.
Context, my man, context.
Here's what I said:
___________________
Coulter knows her audience and her timing is impeccable - after the
Foley, Haggart, etc., scandals that have rocked the core of today's
Repbulcan Party CPAC-type Repubs are no-doubt feeling more than a wee
bit nervous and uneasy about all of the "faggots" right in the center
of their establishment. As such Coulter knew that her base was primed
for a public expression of their homophobia - it helps them repress
their own homosexual tendencies and keep their Party 'pure,'
dontchaknow.
___________________
You edited out the first part, which sets up the context for the
second part. By "epress their own homosexual tendencies" I wasn't
referring to the individual, I was referring to the Party, which does
indeed have homosexual tendencies, as evidenced by the Folly and
Haggart, that they try to repress. On re-read I can see how you
misread that one though.
volkfolk
Both are going for shock value. Both try to arouse the ire of their
opponents. Both are full of shit.
I find both extremely offensive.
BTW, it should be quite obvious that I can't stand Rush. Having said that, I
did/do find Al Franken's calling Rush a big fat idiot, not because it isn't
true, but because it lowers the level of discourse about the REALLY
important stuff.
I suppose like music, food and art, beauty and offensiviness are both in the
eyes of the beholder.
I find Ann, Al, Rush, MM and their ilk to be equally offensive, whether they
are calling someone a faggot, a big fat idiot or whatever.
YMMV
Scot
Ray
I accidentally sent that before finishing.
On re-read I can see how you misread that one though. I should have
been more clear there.
That said, I buy the argument put forth that many people who are anti-
gay are so because they can't come to grips with their personal
homosexual tendencies - why would you waste time and energy getting
your panties in such a bunch over something that is in no way a threat
to you? I think there are people who oppose homosexuality for other
reasons too, not the least of which is that many forms of religion
oppose it. But again, and esp. because of the level of hatred that
many have towards gays, I think repression of one's own sexuality
plays an important role for many peoples' homophobia, though I can't
prove as much.
Pepe Papon
The '50s were better in the '70s.
Neil X.
>
> I find Ann, Al, Rush, MM and their ilk to be equally offensive, whether they
> are calling someone a faggot, a big fat idiot or whatever.
>
> YMMV
Yes, it most definitely varies bigtime. I find bigotry to be a far,
far worse transgression than simple name calling. Insulting an
individual's appearance or intelligence is one thing, but using racial
or sexual slurs is a completely different category on the scale of
offensiveness. It not only insults the individual in question, it
denegrates and marginalizes entire groups of people. The two aren't
even close, in terms of the amount of damage they do to others and to
society at large. By using a word like "faggot," one offends every
gay person who hears about it, and make the natiion a more hostile,
less welcoming place for the minority in question. On the other hand,
calling Rush an idiot only offends Rush (and, potentially, those who
think Rush is brilliant).
Peace,
Neil X.
JerseyMike
wrote:
>
> Communism? Well, isn't that quaint ... we get accused of being stuck in the
> 60s on this newsgroup from time to time. Interesting to see someone who is
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not even close Richard. Communism isn't dead yet. Did you know that in
the year 2007...1 in 4 people on this planet live under Communist
rule?
Look at Latin America. What's Hugo Chavez all about? He's a Communist
dictator slowly gaining complete control over Venezuela. Then again,
that probably doesn't matter much to the far-left libs in America who
liked Iraq better under Saddam Hussein.
Cheers
Ray
> "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173110700.0...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Ted wrote:
>
> >> I didn't say anything about bigotry. I said "offensive"
>
> > What you said was that Ann's quote was "not any more offensive or hate-
> > filled" than what mainstream left wingers say. Then you said "it's no
> > different than Whoopi Goldberg's comments at Kerry's Radio City Music
> > Hall fundraiser, or what Janeane Garofalo's been doing in her act for
> > years."
> > Now you're changing your story, you are saying it IS in fact
> > qualitatively different, because you can't point to any bigoted
> > statements from Whoopi or Jeneane. I challenge you to supply quotes
> > from the Radio Music Hall fundraiser that are "just as offensive and
> > hate-filled" as Ann's bigotry. Please do.
>
> You will find NOBODY who finds AC more offensive than me. Having said that,
> I agree with Ted's observations. There is plenty of bomb throwing coming
> from the left. Al Franken does it all the time, starting with "Rush Limbaugh
> is a big fat idiot". I found that book to be a completely humorless,
> juvenile, retarded and very offensive attempt at political satire
It's been a long time since I read "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot,"
but I recall it primarily being an accurate expose of Limbaugh's
record of lies. And his "big fat idiot" wording was of course
directed at squarely at Limbaugh - he was fighting Limbaugh's fire
with fire.
That said, sometimes Franken gets too juvenile for my tastes as well,
but in my view that's a far cry from using bigoted rhetoric like
Coulter does, whether you mean such rhetoric or not.
> Bill Maher suggested last week that it was "too bad that the bombers missed
> Dick Cheney"
No, he didn't. See my other post on the subject. Not that won't stop
the rightwingnut-o-sphere from repeating that distortion ad nauseum,
just like they do with so many other distortions and lies.
> I don't know if see is a bigot. I don't think that she necessarily believes
> what she said, I think it was, as the subject line of this thread suggests,
> a grab for headlines
I don't know what's worse - being a real bigot or just trafficking in
bigoted rhetoric to make money. In my view either is far worse than
calling someone a "big fat idiot," however, especially when it's
directed at someone, like Limbaugh, who traffics in generalized name-
calling/smearing.
Richard Morris
Yah, and for all of the communists that are lurking under your bed and in
your closet, there are a fair number of unfortunate people who lack the
intellectual skills to conduct a discussion on-subject, so they resort to
red-baiting.
After watching that sort of thing go on for oh, 40 or more years, it gets a
bit tiring.
Anyhow--be sure to check under the bed tonight, and every night.
Ray
> that probably doesn't matter much to the far-left libs in America who
> liked Iraq better under Saddam Hussein.
You still think Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam?
You need to catch up on your talking points, Jersey "Edwards is a
faggot!" Mike: Bush stopped using that sort of rhetoric after it
became ludicrously obvious that Iraq, which was at least a functioning
state under Saddam, is today a deeply fractured, far more violent, and
failed state and terrorist haven, as well as a very effective
terrorist propaganda tool.
JerseyMike
wrote:
>
> >> Communism? Well, isn't that quaint ... we get accused of being stuck in
> >> the
> >> 60s on this newsgroup from time to time. Interesting to see someone who
> >> is
> >> stuck in the 50s.- Hide quoted text -
> "JerseyMike" <mork4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Not even close Richard. Communism isn't dead yet. Did you know that in
> > the year 2007...1 in 4 people on this planet live under Communist
> > rule?
>
> > Look at Latin America. What's Hugo Chavez all about? He's a Communist
> > dictator slowly gaining complete control over Venezuela. Then again,
> > that probably doesn't matter much to the far-left libs in America who
> > liked Iraq better under Saddam Hussein.
>
> Yah, and for all of the communists that are lurking under your bed and in
> your closet, there are a fair number of unfortunate people who lack the
> intellectual skills to conduct a discussion on-subject, so they resort to
> red-baiting.
>
No red-baiting.. Those are the facts that you choose to ignore.
Do I lack intellectual skills because I went off topic?
OK, back to the topic. Let's see....Ann Coulter calls a straight man a
"faggot." LOL Who the fuck cares? Some of you get riled over this?
Give me a break! She's laughing all the way to the bank.
I couldn't care less what any of these media pundits have to say. That
goes for Asswhipe Al, Raunchy Rush, Careless Coulter, Hanitized
Hannity, Softball Matthews, Sterile Savage, Outthere Olberman, and
Factor O'Reilly. Look, they all have audiences to please and they get
rewarded very well for keeping their audiences entertained.
Blame Joe. He's the one who wants to silence those he doesn't agree
with. The more noise they make..the more free entertainment for me.
What's wrong with that? Afterall, it's just entertainment isn't it?
Cheers
Pepe Papon
>That said, I buy the argument put forth that many people who are anti-
>gay are so because they can't come to grips with their personal
>homosexual tendencies - why would you waste time and energy getting
>your panties in such a bunch over something that is in no way a threat
>to you? I think there are people who oppose homosexuality for other
>reasons too, not the least of which is that many forms of religion
>oppose it.
But then, why do the religions oppose it? Probably because those who
invented the religions had their own sexual insecurities.
Richard Morris
> On Mar 6, 12:15 am, "Richard Morris" <jrmor...@trouserscomcast.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> >> Communism? Well, isn't that quaint ... we get accused of being stuck
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> 60s on this newsgroup from time to time. Interesting to see someone
>> >> who
>> >> is
>> >> stuck in the 50s.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> "JerseyMike" <mork4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Not even close Richard. Communism isn't dead yet. Did you know that in
>> > the year 2007...1 in 4 people on this planet live under Communist
>> > rule?
>>
>> > Look at Latin America. What's Hugo Chavez all about? He's a Communist
>> > dictator slowly gaining complete control over Venezuela. Then again,
>> > that probably doesn't matter much to the far-left libs in America who
>> > liked Iraq better under Saddam Hussein.
>>
>> Yah, and for all of the communists that are lurking under your bed and in
>> your closet, there are a fair number of unfortunate people who lack the
>> intellectual skills to conduct a discussion on-subject, so they resort to
>> red-baiting.
>>
> No red-baiting.. Those are the facts that you choose to ignore.
Calling someone that you disagree with a communist is, by definition,
red-baiting. It is also the mark of a small mind.
As for the rest, I did indeed ignore it, because it has nothing to do with
anything.
> Do I lack intellectual skills because I went off topic?
No, you lack intellectual skills because you call names rather than discuss
issues.
> OK, back to the topic. Let's see....Ann Coulter calls a straight man a
> "faggot." LOL Who the fuck cares?
People who don't like sexism, homophobia and bigotry, I guess. Sounds to me
as though you are all three of those, eh?
> Some of you get riled over this?
> Give me a break! She's laughing all the way to the bank.
Yes it is a sorry state in our wonderful country when a major political
party sponsors that kind of crap, isn't it? But you don't mind, because you
and she are a lot alike in that regard, except she is smart enough to make
money at it.
snip
> Blame Joe. He's the one who wants to silence those he doesn't agree
> with. The more noise they make..the more free entertainment for me.
> What's wrong with that? Afterall, it's just entertainment isn't it?
Yes it is! Now run along and play.
theothr1
"volkfolk" < wrote :
: Bill Maher suggesting that it was too bad that the bombers in Afghanistan
: not getting Dick Cheney would be a prime example
:
: Scot
:
:
-- - -
In my best Reagan voice:
"well if the bombers won't
get ya, then the blood clots will."
theothr1
"volkfolk" < wrote ...
:
: "JerseyMike" wrote in...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
: >
: > The biggest problems with far-left libs is they don't want to debate
: > about anything. They make a lot of noise about this and that but never
: > offer any REAL solutions to anything! So instead they attempt to
: > stifle FREE speech!
: >
: > If you're wondering where the Commies in America hide out...look no
: > further than the Democratic party.
: >
: > Edwards is a faggot!
:
: And you're a nitwit
-- - -
Jesus, save me from your followers!
John Doherty
kpn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What I don't get is that calling Edwards a faggot is not even remotely
> applicable so it must have been solely for shock value which is what
> you have been asserting all along. Everyone is hung up on the "Edwards
> is a faggot" part, but really the focus should be on why do you
> (Coulter)
> think he is a faggot? I mean really. He is a pretty boy, but there is
> nothing
> sketchy (a la Haggard) to even suggest he is gay. Does he act gay?
> What is gay?
On Hardball tonight they played a clip last summer with the evil harpy
calling Bill Clinton gay.
Of all the things bill clinton has been called over the years, we, as a
nation, are pretty sure gay is off the mark.
Chris Matthews, like most pundits, exhibited far more interest in
Bubba's sex life than your average bird, so he asked her again.
the response was: "Well, Al Gore's definitely gay"
In other words anyone not following her in a brown shirt is gay.
the funny thing is that one of her old pals was the gay former right
winger, David Brock (now at MediaMatters.org), who used to hit the gay
bars with Matt Drudge & AC. Brock notes many nights when Ann enjoyed his
company and was falling down drunk in bars while leading the national
jihad against Clinton's moral failings.
theothr1
"John Doherty" < wrote ..
-- - - -
That would figure.
That way nobody will notice how many
times we have premarital sex OR get
divorced!
Does it matter that Rudy is on his 3rd marriage?
Joe
> "well if the bombers won't
> get ya, then the blood clots will."
LOL
Joe
Joe
> Blame Joe. He's the one who wants to silence those he doesn't agree
> with. The more noise they make..the more free entertainment for me.
> What's wrong with that? Afterall, it's just entertainment isn't it?
Yeah. 3100 dead American soldiers is a hoot.
And, the 20,000 that lost an arm or a leg or an eye, and then got tortured
at Abu Walter Reed Ghraib is really funny.
Joe
Peter_Wimsey
> But then, why do the religions oppose it? Probably because those who
> invented the religions had their own sexual insecurities.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
Its not entirely clear that "religion" per se, opposes homosexuality.
Abundant eastern cultures/religion have room for euniks etc... And the
only apostle to talk at any length at all about it, Paul, was actually
(probably for a reason) mostly silent on the topic with the widely
recognized exception for boy-prostitutes; the only passage in the new
testament clearly condemning homosexuality (and not one of Jesus's
pronouncements either).
If you believe Umberto Eco, the rampant anti-homosexual campaign of
the catholic church arose in the 13-14th c. as a means of condemning
the overly powerful Knights Templar, who were suspected of widespread
homosexual practices.
I suspect Ann Coulter is using "faggot" as a way of keeping the most
hateful language alive to slander those in the right who want to go
soft on the issue - i.e. Rudy.
N
theothr1
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>
> "Peter_Wimsey" <nic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1172970237.4...@i80g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 3, 7:42 pm, The Lord of Eltingville
>> <tthomas@[REMOVE_TO_REPLY]ogre.net> wrote:
>>> No one's noticed wrote:
>>> > ability to get grab a headline:
>>>
>>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8&mode=related&search=
>>>
>>> FWIW, what she said isn't any more offensive or hate-filled than what's
>>> regularly spouted by the left (and not necessarily the far left, either).
>>
>> Please do give us an example of the so-called left calling a
>> presidential contender a "faggot" (notwithstanding the hiney-sex story
>> somebody posted above).
>
> not getting Dick Cheney would be a prime example
Having watched that particular Bill Maher show in the last couple days,
that is a rather misleading and inflammatory paraphrasing of what he
actually said.
--
Aaron
Ray
> On 5 Mar 2007 20:43:02 -0800, "Ray" <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That said, I buy the argument put forth that many people who are anti-
> >gay are so because they can't come to grips with their personal
> >homosexual tendencies - why would you waste time and energy getting
> >your panties in such a bunch over something that is in no way a threat
> >to you? I think there are people who oppose homosexuality for other
> >reasons too, not the least of which is that many forms of religion
> >oppose it.
>
> But then, why do the religions oppose it? Probably because those who
> invented the religions had their own sexual insecurities.
I think that's part of it... I think using that form of bigotry as a
control method (you know - the "they are the problem" tactic) is
another.
That said, I have no doubt that many people today are anti-gay simply
because their version of preacher tells them to be.
Ray
> On Mar 6, 4:02 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>
> > But then, why do the religions oppose it? Probably because those who
> > invented the religions had their own sexual insecurities.
> > --
> > ~ Seth Jackson
>
> Its not entirely clear that "religion" per se, opposes homosexuality.
Agreed - which is why I wrote that "many forms of religion" oppose it
- not religion per se. And, if I read Seth correctly it's those "many
forms of religion" that I was referring to that Seth was responding
to.
> If you believe Umberto Eco, the rampant anti-homosexual campaign of
> the catholic church arose in the 13-14th c. as a means of condemning
> the overly powerful Knights Templar, who were suspected of widespread
> homosexual practices.
I recently read a history of the Knights Templar that had a similar
but somewhat different take. That take asserts that allledged
homosexual practices by the Knights Templar was way overblown by the
King of France and his allies in the Catholic church to bring down the
Templars.
In other words, the King of France and the Church used traditional
Catholic opposition to homosexuality to bring down a powerful
opponent.
> I suspect Ann Coulter is using "faggot" as a way of keeping the most
> hateful language alive to slander those in the right who want to go
> soft on the issue - i.e. Rudy.
My guess is that Coulter doesn't care one way or the other - she uses
"faggot" and other bigoted terms for the shock value to make money.
JerseyMike
wrote:
FREE speech what it is. A fuckin Commie! Get real Pal. You've been
watching that Michael Moore movie too many times. Oh Yeah...where's
Mike these days? He cashed out on YOUR dime and is living the good
life!
Ann Coulter never said Edwards was a "faggot." The media did.
Cheers
JerseyMike
Be honest Joe, you really couldn't care less about the troops. You
simply hate America. Why don't you move to Canada? Then again, you
probably already did.
Cheers
Brad Greer
wrote:
Stifling free speech is something done by both the communists and
fascists. It's really political spectrum neutral.
Ray
> Ann Coulter never said Edwards was a "faggot." The media did.
Tell that to a list of right-wing bloggers who have finally had enough
of her bigoted language:
____________________
At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to
John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential
candidate, as a "faggot." ...
Coulter's vicious word choice tells the world she care little about
the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and
despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending
themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing
conservative ideas...
We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer
be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much
damage.
____________________
http://www.theamericanmind.com/2007/03/05/an-open-letter-to-cpac-sponsors-and-organizers-regarding-ann-coulter/
And you parroted Coulter's 'vicious' and bigoted rhetoric by calling
Edwards a "faggot" directly - what a guy.
Ray
> I'm not being "self-righteous" by pointing out - correctly - that the
> mean that everyone in the audience approved of and applauded her
> smear? Of course not. But a large number of them did.
The president of the American Conservative Union -- which presents
CPAC -- refuses to condemn Coulter's speech or even say if they'll
uninvite her next year. The reason? Conservative blogger/pundit
Andrew Sullivan, who stopped drinking the BushCo kool-aid a few years
back, says it's "because the base would explode. Coulter is central to
a core element of the conservative movement today. And [ACU president]
Keene can't risk taking her on."
_______________________
I just got an email from the American Conservative Union. They won't
say if they'll disinvite Coulter from CPAC next year. They won't
actually condemn Coulter's speech. Money quote:
"ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments
are appropriate or not. "Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be
both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her
2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of
clarification, let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone
or endorse the use of hate speech," said David A. Keene, ACU
Chairman."
Does that mean he believes her speech was "hate-speech"? Why can he
not just say so and disinvite her in the future? The answer: because
the base would explode. Coulter is central to a core element of the
conservative movement today. And Keene can't risk taking her on.
---
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/keene_on_coulte.html
Joe
> Having watched that particular Bill Maher show in the last couple days,
> that is a rather misleading and inflammatory paraphrasing of what he
> actually said.
The courts confirmed today what I've been saying for years: Republicans
lie about everything.
Not only that, but they're scum-bags and criminals too.
Joe
Edwin Hurwitz
Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2007 20:43:02 -0800, "Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That said, I buy the argument put forth that many people who are anti-
> >gay are so because they can't come to grips with their personal
> >homosexual tendencies - why would you waste time and energy getting
> >your panties in such a bunch over something that is in no way a threat
> >to you? I think there are people who oppose homosexuality for other
> >reasons too, not the least of which is that many forms of religion
> >oppose it.
>
> But then, why do the religions oppose it? Probably because those who
> invented the religions had their own sexual insecurities.
Christianity and other religions have sought control over sexual issues
for a long time. Sexuality is a primal power and when you repress it and
dole it out, it can be a great tool for political and economic gain.
Edwin
Richard Morris
"Edwin Hurwitz" <ed...@indra.com> wrote in message
news:edwin-06BBAD....@news.indra.com...
Yes ... women have known this practically forever.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Mar 6, 4:02 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>
>> But then, why do the religions oppose it? Probably because those who
>> invented the religions had their own sexual insecurities.
>> --
>> ~ Seth Jackson
>
>
>Its not entirely clear that "religion" per se, opposes homosexuality.
>Abundant eastern cultures/religion have room for euniks etc...
I never said that "religion" opposes it. The point was that "many
religions" oppose it.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>> No, you lack intellectual skills because you call names rather than discuss
>> issues.
>>
>Nice try Richard. How about calling someone who would rather silence
>FREE speech what it is. A fuckin Commie! Get real Pal. You've been
>watching that Michael Moore movie too many times. Oh Yeah...where's
>Mike these days? He cashed out on YOUR dime and is living the good
>life!
>
>Ann Coulter never said Edwards was a "faggot." The media did.
Wow. Is it possible for you to exhibit any more misunderstanding of
the issues?
Pepe Papon
wrote:
Of course not. Because he's a Republican, and they're for Family
Values(tm)!
JerseyMike
>
> >Ann Coulter never said Edwards was a "faggot." The media did.
>
> Wow. Is it possible for you to exhibit any more misunderstanding of
> the issues?
>
Here's your assignment for today Pepe. First, LISTEN very carefully to
the video. Secondly, write down on a piece of paper EXACTLY what she
said.
Repeat this process several times, then, come back and let us now what
she said. OK? Thanks.
I'll make it real easy for you, here's the link.
Oh yeah...don't forget that John Edwards donation! The sweet talking
AMBULANCE CHASER with a $6 million dollar home needs YOUR money!
http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/images/edwardshouse-low.jpg
https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/coulter
Like I said...She never said Edwards was a "faggot." The GAY media
did!
Cheers
Peter_Wimsey
> On 6 Mar 2007 07:48:48 -0800, "Peter_Wimsey" <nick...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 6, 4:02 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> But then, why do the religions oppose it? Probably because those who
> >> invented the religions had their own sexual insecurities.
> >> --
> >> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> >Its not entirely clear that "religion" per se, opposes homosexuality.
> >Abundant eastern cultures/religion have room for euniks etc...
>
> I never said that "religion" opposes it. The point was that "many
> religions" oppose it.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net
Easy there. I'm on your side. Didn't meant to be "smarmy" with that
reply. I just think its funny how people always go on about gay-this
gay-that being an abomination as stated by God. Where did God say
this?
Anyway, WIIAAHSWYPA!
N
JB
> Easy there. I'm on your side. Didn't meant to be "smarmy" with that
> reply. I just think its funny how people always go on about gay-this
> gay-that being an abomination as stated by God. Where did God say
> this?
>
Just to answer your question, the passage that most people are referring
to is Leviticus 18:22 "Man should not lie with a man,as one does with a
woman,it is an abomination".
JimK
wrote:
That's not where God said it; it's where some guy named Leviticus said
it. Leviticus said a lot of stupid things.
JimK
JimK
wrote:
Makes perfect sense to me. Rudy must value families since he's got
three of them.
JimK
Peter_Wimsey
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:41:12 -0500, JB <JayBe...@nospam.gmail.com>
Yeah, besides, to quote Lewis Black, "that's my book, it wasn't good
enough for you, so you had to go write a new one.". Leviticus also
talks about not shaving, expelling women from the family during their
periods, and various animal sacrifices. Along with laws regulating
horse-drawn carriages, this one's outdated.
Most people refer to Paul ("the old queer") for New Testament anti-gay
slogans. Of course, Paul never met JC, and the passage is very vague,
and probably refers to boy prostitutes (Mark Foley to the white
courtesy phone...).
N
Ray
> She never said Edwards was a "faggot." The GAY media did!
Whereas earlier in this thread Jersey "Edwards is a faggot!" Mike
wrote:
> OK, back to the topic. Let's see....Ann Coulter calls a straight man a
> "faggot." LOL Who the fuck cares?
I'll give you this much, Jersey "Edwards is a faggot!" Mike: your
inability to keep your stories straight and not contradict yourself
here and elsewhere (see your contradictory statements about global
warming), is somewhat amusing.
> She never said Edwards was a "faggot." The GAY media did!
You are "the GAY media"?!? NTTAWWT...
Ray
Yep, that's but one of many abominations presented in Leviticus,
including for example the abomination of eating shrimp, crab, lobster,
clams, mussels, and all other shellfish:
Leviticus 11:9-12:
--------
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath
fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them
shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the
rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which
is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of
their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an
abomination unto you.
--------
Funny how Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and the rest aren't quite as
vigilant about repressing and damning the shrimp and crab eaters as
they are with the gays...
Joe
In two words, please describe the name that JerseyMike posted under last
month.
Joe
JerseyMike
Ray. You lost the Global Warming debate and now you are back for more?
I wrote that in mockery of the current Edwards/Coulter situation.
Apparently you couldn't see through it and for that I apologize. I
have an assignment for you today as well. Check and see how Pepe is
doing and get back to us.
Cheers
JerseyMike
Hi Joe, I never posted in this forum under any other name.
Cheers
Ray
> On Mar 7, 10:19 am, "Ray" <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 3:23 am, Jersey "Edwards is a faggot!" Mike wrote:
>
> > > She never said Edwards was a "faggot." The GAY media did!
>
> > Whereas earlier in this thread Jersey "Edwards is a faggot!" Mike
> > wrote:
>
> > > OK, back to the topic. Let's see....Ann Coulter calls a straight man a
> > > "faggot." LOL Who the fuck cares?
>
> > I'll give you this much, Jersey "Edwards is a faggot!" Mike: your
> > inability to keep your stories straight and not contradict yourself
> > here and elsewhere (see your contradictory statements about global
> > warming), is somewhat amusing.
>
> > > She never said Edwards was a "faggot." The GAY media did!
>
> > You are "the GAY media"?!? NTTAWWT...
>
> Ray. You lost the Global Warming debate
LoL... damn you are amusing. somewhat.
We left that discussion with my pointing out that you had originally
declared:
"I have not done much research on global warming therefore I cannot
make an honest assessment of the situation... This shit is confusing!"
And that declaration of yours notwithstanding, you then proceeded to
talk down to people who don't share your evidently quite firm
positions on global warming.
Again: You were either not being "honest" when you made your original
statement, or you were not being "honest" with your subsequent
"assessment of the situation" - take your pick.
> I wrote that in mockery of the current Edwards/Coulter situation.
And you are "mocking" that situation now as well - so what?
theothr1
"Peter_Wimsey" <wrote
: Most people refer to Paul ("the old queer") for New Testament anti-gay
: slogans. Of course, Paul never met JC, and the passage is very vague,
: and probably refers to boy prostitutes (Mark Foley to the white
: courtesy phone...).
:
: N
-- - -
Speaking of which, rehab MUST
be getting crowded in there!
BTW, were there any changes
made to the page programs?
theothr1
"Richard Morris" <> wrote ...
:
: "Edwin Hurwitz" < wrote
: > Pepe Papon <> wrote:
: >
Ray" <> wrote:
: >>
: >> >That said, I buy the argument put forth that many people who are anti-
: >> >gay are so because they can't come to grips with their personal
: >> >homosexual tendencies - why would you waste time and energy getting
: >> >your panties in such a bunch over something that is in no way a threat
: >> >to you? I think there are people who oppose homosexuality for other
: >> >reasons too, not the least of which is that many forms of religion
: >> >oppose it.
: >>
: >> But then, why do the religions oppose it? Probably because those who
: >> invented the religions had their own sexual insecurities.
: >
: > Christianity and other religions have sought control over sexual issues
: > for a long time. Sexuality is a primal power and when you repress it and
: > dole it out, it can be a great tool for political and economic gain.
:
: Yes ... women have known this practically forever.
:
:
:
-- - -
Ahhh... those who "get it!"
Now THAT'S sexy! :')
theothr1
"JimK" > wrote
Pepe Papon wrote:
:
"theothr1"
: >wrote:
:: >>-- - - -
: >>That would figure.
: >>That way nobody will notice how many
: >>times we have premarital sex OR get
: >>divorced!
: >>Does it matter that Rudy is on his 3rd marriage?
: >>
: >
: >Of course not. Because he's a Republican, and they're for Family
: >Values(tm)!
:
: Makes perfect sense to me. Rudy must value families since he's got
: three of them.
-- - -
Here's an example of Republican fathering
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48895/
Big Julius
Someone claimed that Al Franken's book title "Rush Limbaugh is a Big
Fat Idiot" was deregatory, and used it as an example of left-wing name-
calling. Well, obviously that person never read the book. Franken
points out that the title is a tongue-in-cheek joke, making fun of the
kind of baseless crap-spewing Rush is known for. I used to think that
Franken was just another name-caller, too, until I actually read his
book. He's very informed and fully researches and analyzes everything
he says. If you don't agree, go read his book before replying. Just
wanted to defend Mr. Franken.
-j
Neil X.
You're right, you know.
But what I want to know is, are you orange?
Peace,
Neil X.
Big Julius
tee hee hee..ahem. Yes. And quite refreshing.
DGDevin
news:vM6dnWMHI58KfXHY...@comcast.com...
> You will find NOBODY who finds AC more offensive than me. Having said
> that, I agree with Ted's observations. There is plenty of bomb throwing
> coming from the left. Al Franken does it all the time, starting with "Rush
> Limbaugh is a big fat idiot". I found that book to be a completely
> humorless, juvenile, retarded and very offensive attempt at political
> satire
>
> Bill Maher suggested last week that it was "too bad that the bombers
> missed Dick Cheney" I find that offensive too.
>
> The Right hasn't cornered the market on offensive, inflamatory rhetoric
Yup, but followers of both camps have developed the ability to deal with
their own side's offensive rhetoric by simply not finding it offensive. So
when one of theirs says something sleazy it's simply ruled less offensive
than the latest stupidity from Coulter or Limbaugh or Moore, no harm no
foul. So calling someone a faggot is pointlessly offensive and only
brownshirted Republicans would laugh at it, but if Whoopi Goldberg makes
what the NY Times described as an extended sexual pun on the President's
surname, well it was just a joke, loosen up everybody. Ditto with Margaret
Cho or Jeanine Garafalo, those were just jokes, why is anyone taking them
seriously? But let the insulting barbs be stuck in someone on their side,
oops, the old sense of humor dries up in a flash.
> I don't know if see is a bigot. I don't think that she necessarily
> believes what she said, I think it was, as the subject line of this thread
> suggests, a grab for headlines
And influence, and income. She gets rich off this stuff, ditto with
Limbaugh and Moore and Franken and all the rest, it's what they do for a
living.