Ann Coulter, right wing goddess

POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Thursday, October 5, 2023 23:43
VIEWED: 28042
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, March 5, 2007 5:12 PM

on John Edwards:
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

later comment:
" I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards."

and:
"C'mon, it was a joke. "

Yeah, that one worked for John Kerrey.

KHYRON

Monday, March 5, 2007 5:23 PM

Unlike John Kerry, she's on the side of the Republicans, so this will be a non-issue.

On the other hand, if some commentator on the side of the Democrats made a joke like that about one of the Republican candidates, guess what you'd be seeing on Fox News for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the next few weeks.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

GEEZER

Monday, March 5, 2007 5:25 PM

John Edwards is a bunch of sticks? Well, he always did seem a little stiff...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, March 5, 2007 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
John Edwards is a bunch of sticks?

Yeah, they'll probably burn him at the stake next...

LITTLEDAMNHERO

Monday, March 5, 2007 9:18 PM

I can't, in good conscience, say that I think she should have said what she did, but really, it was so hilarious. Really shows you the character of all the politicians as EVERY candidate came up to say that it was wrong so they would be seen as tolerant of homosexuals and also harboring no ill feelings for the other candidates.

Ann Coulter is seriously hilarious.

Are you worried that I cut up my mattress for no reason or that I had a perfectly good reason that you can't see?

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, March 5, 2007 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
on John Edwards:
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

later comment:
" I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards."

and:
"C'mon, it was a joke. "

Yeah, that one worked for John Kerrey.

Ann Coulter is a liar, her book Slander is riddled with innacuracies and poison for the mind. It's a collection of all the delusions that Republicans love to relax in.

But check this out it's Hi-larious

http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/stories/2003/11/22/annCoultersBeautySec
ret.html

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

PENGUIN

Monday, March 5, 2007 9:24 PM

Your title was close...

Ann Coulter, right wing nut

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 5, 2007 11:10 PM

Quote:
Khyron wrote:
Monday, March 05, 2007 07:23
Unlike John Kerry, she's on the side of the Republicans, so this will be a non-issue.

I'm unaware of Ann running for office for anything, unlike Kerry.

Quote:
On the other hand, if some commentator on the side of the Democrats made a joke like that about one of the Republican candidates, guess what you'd be seeing on Fox News for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the next few weeks.

You mean like how Bill Maher said if Cheney had died ( per the suicide bomber attack in Afghanistan ) , more people would be alive today ? That sort of thing ? Naw, you hardly hear anything about that on the news, as compared to the Colter comments.

Gee, wonder why.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

YINYANG

Monday, March 5, 2007 11:14 PM

As much fun as the "donate blood to fuel here unholiness story" is, I have one better (and some of you may have seen it alread). It's extremely offensive, and I don't think it's meant to be serious at all. It's lewd, it's crude, and, well... if you click the link, anything that happens afterward is in no way my fault. You have been warned.

Really, though, the weblink says it all.

NC-17 (at least)

http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com

My sincere apologies to Ann Coulter, Gandhi, MLK Jr., and God (if there is one). I am so burning in Hell (if there is one) for finding amusement in this.

I'm a bad person.

EDIT: That didn't work the way I wanted it to. Sorry...

KHYRON

Monday, March 5, 2007 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm unaware of Ann running for office for anything, unlike Kerry.

Kerry isn't running for office, nor was he when he made that botched joke.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
On the other hand, if some commentator on the side of the Democrats made a joke like that about one of the Republican candidates, guess what you'd be seeing on Fox News for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the next few weeks.

You mean like how Bill Maher said if Cheney had died ( per the suicide bomber attack in Afghanistan ) , more people would be alive today ? That sort of thing ?

No, I meant: "a joke like that about one of the Republican candidates".

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

HERO

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
John Edwards is a bunch of sticks? Well, he always did seem a little stiff...

Its the one up his ass that...damn. Too easy.

H

ERIC

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:06 AM

Coulter is:

1. A man
2. A type of horse
3. Irrelevant in the extreme and whoring for attention

I say ignore him.

HERO

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
No, I meant: "a joke like that about one of the Republican candidates".

None of the Republican candidates is...well...you know. At least not now that Senator Allen has chosen not to run.

The real question is if John Edwards is gay. I say 'look at his wife' and that should answer your question. Damn right he's gay. I seem to remember some story of him making out with Kerry back in 2004. Maybe PirateNews can chime in on that.

John Edwards, gay or not, sees dead people, talks to dead people, and unlike most Democrats, cannot get them to vote for him.

H

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com

ROFLMAO

Oh crap was that funny.

Quote:
I am so burning in Hell (if there is one) for finding amusement in this.

If that's true then we should meet up on the Lake Of Fire for some surfing.

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
[NC-17 (at least)

I am so burning in Hell (if there is one) for finding amusement in this.

you will have plenty of company.... that was hilarious...but did you follow the link to the next episode..?

http://backinanncoultersasssaddleagain.blogspot.com/

i just wish he had left Earl Scruggs out of the mix !

YINYANG

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 4:29 AM

Surfing on the Lake of Fire... cheating Satan at Go Fish... my afterlife is set, man!

I just feel sorry for that guy who wrote those - the horrors he live with in his mind. He needs a hug.

ILGREVEN

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 6:01 AM

Well, let's see here:

Ann Coulter: I don't wanna say JE is a faggot, but...
LW: COULTER CALLS EDWARDS F-WORD!

Bill Maher: If Dick Cheney had died, a lot of lives would probably be saved.
RW: MAHER WISHES DEATH ON CHENEY!

Which one's really more accurate?

(Meanwhile, I personally think that there is no one on the left like Ann Coulter is on the right...and the scarier proposition is that she's not the worst of the right-wing loonies...

----------

"Bye now. Have good sex!"

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:22 AM

I reead an editorial piece by a gay somewhere today.
Can't cite the source, wish I could, it ain't fair to steal a line this perfect. He wrote, " Ann Coulter couldn't find a homosexual at a Barbra Streisand concert in San Francisco during Gay Pride Week if she got bitch-slapped by Elton John."

'Bout as clueless as you could get .

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 10:25 AM

Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.

Another example that Ann Coulter knows her niche. She has indentified that there is a market out there for people who say what many Americans want to say. She is a hero to that subgroup for that reason.

Oh well. So someone is making money off stupidity. Nothing new. It's just PT Barnum in a different guise for a different millenium.

What is news is not that Ann Coulter has made a statement that some people find inflammatory. That is her shtick. What is news is that prominent conservative groups will continue to ask her to speak in front of large audiences. Self-policing my ass. In other words, the present day Republican party needs people like Ann Coulter to keep a subset of their members happy.

I guess the bigger question is, "Would Ann Coulter still sell books if she was not propped up by the Regnery/RW welfare machine?" Probably not. The takeaway message is that the wingnuts will take care of their own.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
It's just PT Barnum in a different guise for a different millenium.

You are so on the money.

What bothers me is not that there are idiots like Coulter and Limbaugh, but that they have an audience. There are people listening to them, reading them, defending them, and cheering them on....THAT'S scary.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

SHINYED

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:46 PM

Ann Coulter doesn't ever apologize, especially when there's nothing to apologize for. I don't like ANYONE using insults or bad language in the public arena, but hey if it's good enough for ALL the Hollywood idiot liberals & MSNBC & HBO to sling their curses and insults at Republicans, then Ann is doing a great service to America by providing some balance to the daily barrage of the leftist media agenda.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 1:01 PM

Yeah, Ann Coulter can really be full of crap somtimes like a lot of political satirists such as Bill Mahr, Michael Moore, All Frankin and a host of Left-wing Hollywood types who are frequently invited to speak at prominent groups such as the DNC. This kind of stuff is nothing new.

But there’s one thing good about Ann Coulter. She the only one I know of who can single handedly get Left-wing types who would otherwise shot their mouth off with or acquiesce some of the most vile and hateful things about people they don’t agree with, to suddenly develop a social conscience of public expression towards politicians.

The next time someone on this board makes some outlandish statement about Bush or Cheney, I’ll be expecting all my newfound converts to criticize that person with the same alacrity that they’ve displayed towards Coulter.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

EMPIREX

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 5:45 PM

If that woman believes half of what she writes then she's a complete nut. I saw her on David Letterman a while ago. George Carlin was there and I kept hoping he'd really rip into the bitch, but he behaved himself. I was so disappointed.

To me, the most irritating thing about her... well, the second-most irritating thing about her is how FUNNY she thinks she is. There's nothing lamer than someone who thinks they're brilliantly funny when, in reality, they're just pathetic. That, and she makes it embarassing to be white. Seriously. If I could change into a gay-Arab-socialist-illegal immigrant, I totally would, just to spite her.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Coulter is:

1. A man
2. A type of horse
3. Irrelevant in the extreme and whoring for attention

I say ignore him.

part of a horse, anyway...

RUE

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:12 PM

"I heard it straight from the horse's ..... ass"

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:20 PM

Mann Coulter with Log Cabin Jew Matt Drudge at Gay Pride parade

Quote:

Strap-On Veterans for Truth

An organization dedicating to exposing the truth about the former drag queen now known as Ann Coulter

Transexual Mann Coulter

We are a coalition of former friends and co-workers of Ann Coulter who are upset by her vicious anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-feminist rhetoric and feel the truth should be told. Our organization, Strap-On Veterans For Truth, is dedicated to exposing the true past of America’s number one hatemonger.

Ann Coulter is actually a former drag queen from Key West named Pudenda Shenanigans. Ms. Shenanigans was famous for her renditions of “Dude Looks Like a Lady” “I Will Survive” and “You Shook Me All Night Long” as well as an extensive Barbra Streisand repertoire. We who used to work with her are concerned for her as well as upset by the vile hatred she has spewed towards her former friends in the gay community. We feel that by bringing the truth to light perhaps Ann will come to grips with her past and change her wicked ways.

As Pudenda Shenanigans, she was well known on the drag circuit in Key West. Whether she actually had a full sex change or not is a matter of debate, although her adam’s apple is still visible in photos, under the appropriate light. We who laughed, cried, worked and danced with her feel her story should be told. We are not out to punish her, but feel it’s time she owned up to what she really is.

The person known today as Ann Coulter was born Jeremy Levinsohn in the village in New York in 1960. His parents were typical latte-drinking liberals, religiously conservative, but socially and politically radical. His father taught Russian Literature at CUNY and his mother was a social worker. His childhood friend Rodger Mihalot described him, “The Levinsohns were nice people, but his father was distant, so Jeremy seemed to seek a strong male figure in his life. Although they were Jewish, he often hung out at our church, and really seemed to spend a lot of time with Fr. Donatella Nowunn. I also think he was really looking to rebel against his overly liberal parents. Otherwise he was a typical kid, he liked to play cowboy, sailor and gladiator a lot. His favorite movie was always The Sheik, he really seemed to have a fascination with Arabs, I don’t know why.”

In the 70’s Jeremy went to Brandeis, where he majored in Sociology, with a minor in comparative religions. His lifelong fascination with Muslims really seemed to take root at Brandeis. But college roommate Ima Gaiboyye described an unhappy man, “He was never really interested in women, but did go see the theater company’s production of “The Wizard of Oz” 10 times, I thought he liked the girl who played the lead, he really talked about her outfit a lot. After college Jeremy just dropped off the face of the earth, we never heard from him again.”

Jeremy drifted for awhile before finding himself in Key West. Co-worker Licky Dickenstein described these early years, “Jeremy was a natural, I never saw anyone take to drag so quickly. Once he found his persona, he WAS Pudenda Shenanigans. For most of us drag was a part time thing, but Pudenda was 24-7, always in character, always in costume. She really shook things up, she was a goddess on stage.”

By 1985 Ms Shenanigans was dating a Lebanese businessman, Ustahav Toubohls and the two were believed to be deliriously happy. Friends report Pudenda always had a fetish for Muslims and was considering a marriage proposal. But then she opened up the New York Times one day and saw a picture of Mr. Toubohls with a famous actress in New York. Former friend Gaivit Tuhym described the result, “Pudenda was devastated, she couldn’t stand seeing her Toubohls with another woman. She cried and cried, ‘I miss my Toubohls, I want my Toubohls back!’ I don’t think she ever forgave him, the New York Times, or Muslims in general.”

After that Ms. Shenanigans disappeared for years, only resurfaci

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

MALBADINLATIN

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Ann Coulter doesn't ever apologize, especially when there's nothing to apologize for. I don't like ANYONE using insults or bad language in the public arena, but hey if it's good enough for ALL the Hollywood idiot liberals & MSNBC & HBO to sling their curses and insults at Republicans, then Ann is doing a great service to America by providing some balance to the daily barrage of the leftist media agenda.

Though we're polar opposites politically, I can always count on you for a good point from the other side. What I think you're right about is that Bill Maher, Al Franken, and the rest of the liberal media will never apologize for what they say.

There are however certain groups of people that have suffered enough and it's just mean spirited to make fun of them. IE gays, jews, blacks, etc.. When Mrs Coulter called Edwards a faggot, she meant it as an insult, ergo: being gay is bad. It doesn't help to go on to say that "insult to gays" stuff she tried to recover with. I have heard both Shawn Hannity and Bill Oreilly gay bash too. The outrage from the left in NOT about John Edwards, it's about percieved bigotry concerning sexual preference from the Republican party.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

RUE

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:33 PM

"Ann Coulter, right wing goddess"

Would that be the one with snakes for hair?

RUE

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:37 PM

"What I think you're right about is that Bill Maher, Al Franken, and the rest of the liberal media will never apologize for what they say."

OOC, what would that be? Making fun of Cheney for shooting his 'friend' in the face? (Oh, and then using the secret service to keep the local police from questioning him.) Making fun of Bush for his proven mis-communicator abilities? Or for being out on bike rides when important things are scheduled?

Just wondering if you have any specifics in mind.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Ann Coulter, right wing goddess"

Would that be the one with snakes for hair?

I think she might be Sappho of Lesbos, reincarnated.

Maybe her real problem is that she's a closet bull dyke, and really wants to do it with Rosie O'Donnell on network TV.

And my apologies to closeted bull dykes everywhere.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:58 PM

Well, I DO have to 'fess up that Stephanie Miller DOES call Ann Coulter a "junk-toting stick figure". I suppose Ann just got tired of being called a transexual once too often and decided to respond in-kind. Too bad she hit the wrong target, 'cause I don't think Ewards has ever called her a mean name.

nyah nyah nyah SHE started it!!!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

MAVOURNEEN

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 8:06 PM

So I was on photobucket, looking for this one particular pic of Ms. Coulter as a spider...when I came across this one.

What is with her hands???
They look vaguely alien...and this picture isn't 'shopped. It is also readily available on her website.

almost more disturbing than her words are her hands...

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 8:11 PM

Quote:
Kerry isn't running for office, nor was he when he made that botched joke.

No, he wasn't going to run for office again, not after stuffing his entire foot into his mouth w/ that botched joke of his. But he sure as heck was planning on it.

Quote:
No, I meant: "a joke like that about one of the Republican candidates".

Oh, my bad, you mean how any number of Hollywood celebs made vulgar comments about Bush before the '04 election? Like Whoopie Goldberg, at a fundraiser which included John Kerry, uttered some choice profanity ? THAT sort of thing ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FLETCH2

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mavourneen:
So I was on photobucket, looking for this one particular pic of Ms. Coulter as a spider...when I came across this one.

What is with her hands???
They look vaguely alien...and this picture isn't 'shopped. It is also readily available on her website.

almost more disturbing than her words are her hands...

My guess is that the picture has been stretched vertically at some point --- it's a quick way to slim a few pounds if you need a lazy photoshop diet.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 9:06 PM

Maybe Coulter has Marfan Syndrome.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe Coulter has Marfan Syndrome.

That was my second guess

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
if it's good enough for ALL the Hollywood idiot liberals & MSNBC & HBO to sling their curses and insults at Republicans, then Ann is doing a great service to America by providing some balance to the daily barrage of the leftist media agenda.

Would a bunch of five year-olds calling you a poo-brain mess up your day, Shiny?
The so-called barrage from the left is just like that. No matter what is said, the extreme right will have, more or less, it's way. F**K the people, let 'em scream, the middle east will be the source of enemies and terror and war profit for decades to come. We're set. Let Nader be prez, who gives a crap? Let the left TRY to undo what's been done. By the time they make any headway at all, they'll look like jerks, and the uber-right can step back in and amp things up again.
We're screwed, dude.

Sit back and enjoy. Chrisisall

MALBADINLATIN

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OOC, what would that be?

Just wondering if you have any specifics in mind.

, errrr....ummmmm....uhhhh....yea!....that ummm...bicycle thing there uhhhhhh......thats it...................Oh hell! I don't know!

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

KHYRON

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh, my bad, you mean how any number of Hollywood celebs made vulgar comments about Bush before the '04 election? Like Whoopie Goldberg, at a fundraiser which included John Kerry, uttered some choice profanity ? THAT sort of thing ?

What did they say? Did they call him 'faggot'?

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

DAYVE

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 10:26 PM

Ann Coulter...???? You wanta get your Prairie Harpie off this board....

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by IlGreven:
Meanwhile, I personally think that there is no one on the left like Ann Coulter is on the right

Agreed, we've got a lot of asshats on the Left, but nothing to compare to the raw hate that people like Coulter spew.

Quote:
...and the scarier proposition is that she's not the worst of the right-wing loonies...

Westboro Baptist Church

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mavourneen:
So I was on photobucket, looking for this one particular pic of Ms. Coulter as a spider...when I came across this one.

What is with her hands???
They look vaguely alien...and this picture isn't 'shopped. It is also readily available on her website.

almost more disturbing than her words are her hands...

Case solved:

www.scifilm.org/reviews3/americanwerewolf.html

Mann Coulter is a werewolf.

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

RUE

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 12:10 AM

Her hand looks vaguely like some animal's leg stuck on the end of her arm. With human fingers on the end of it.

JKIDDO

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 1:05 AM

Ustahav Toubohls ... Ima Gaiboyye

Okay, I know it's sophomoric humor. But I gotta add these to my list of...
The White Cliffs by Ilene Dover
Yellow River by I. P. Daily
Russian Tyrants by Ivan Teratitoff
The Taming of the Free Range by Barb Wyre.

Quote:
Mann Coulter is a werewolf

Makes sense to me!

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
on John Edwards:
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

later comment:
" I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards."

and:
"C'mon, it was a joke. "

Yeah, that one worked for John Kerrey.

Well she should know a homosexual when she sees one, what with the adams apple and all.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
Ustahav Toubohls ... Ima Gaiboyye

Okay, I know it's sophomoric humor. But I gotta add these to my list of...
The White Cliffs by Ilene Dover
Yellow River by I. P. Daily
Russian Tyrants by Ivan Teratitoff
The Taming of the Free Range by Barb Wyre.
Quote:
Mann Coulter is a werewolf
Makes sense to me!

When Mann Coulter was on the alex Jones Show, I called in and ripped her head off, which was fun. Alex had been playing good cop up to that point, regarding her ghost book about McCarthy vs communism. I said something about the Jr Bush White House having more Commies than Joe could shake a stick at, and Bush Gang perping all their crimes. When she flipped out, alex then ripped her head off too.

Good fun. Almost as much fun as when I said the F-word on 100,000-watt neo con radio, then I filed a $100,l000 obscenity complaint with FCC:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6410549186072180914&hl=en
www.piratenews.org/kill-robocops.html

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

PNTV banned at Gitmo!
www.piratenews.org/hollywood.html

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
When Mrs Coulter called Edwards a faggot, she meant it as an insult, ergo: being gay is bad. It doesn't help to go on to say that "insult to gays" stuff she tried to recover with. I have heard both Shawn Hannity and Bill Oreilly gay bash too.

Sorry, but I think you're totally wrong about that meaning....she was obviously using "that f-t word" in the context of a mama's boy, or girly-man, etc....she knows he's NOT gay for lord's sake..didnt he run for VP back a spell?..can't even kool-aid comotosed liberals recognize sarcasm when they hear it...or is that another rehab qualifier? In that spirit...ya know..Johnny-boy being the "target" of dodgeball harrassment as a child & teen...but pretty-boy got his revenge on the average American years ago by suing & suing & suing...frikkin guy was like the Energizer bunny out there crusading against anyone or entity that had either an insurance policy or credit card....& filing & filing & filing...ya know...enuf so he could have his own personal Shangri-la compound...well big congrats Mr Edwards...I wouldn't ever call you what Ann did...but then again I'm not a 5 time NY Times bestselling author...also before all bash her with great fervor...read her biography and life accomplishments...frikkin gal has worked her tail off...much harded than most...& certainly nothing "given" to her like so many that have the ever-grating gall to shoot off their imbicilic mouths without actually knowing ...oh, maybe about 1/20th of what Ann would know about politics and world history and US law.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
When Mrs Coulter called Edwards a faggot, she meant it as an insult, ergo: being gay is bad. It doesn't help to go on to say that "insult to gays" stuff she tried to recover with. I have heard both Shawn Hannity and Bill Oreilly gay bash too.

Sorry, but I think you're totally wrong about that meaning....she was obviously using "that f-t word" in the context of a mama's boy, or girly-man, etc....she knows he's NOT gay for lord's sake..didnt he run for VP back a spell?..can't even kool-aid comotosed liberals recognize sarcasm when they hear it...or is that another rehab qualifier? In that spirit...ya know..Johnny-boy being the "target" of dodgeball harrassment as a child & teen...but pretty-boy got his revenge on the average American years ago by suing & suing & suing...frikkin guy was like the Energizer bunny out there crusading against anyone or entity that had either an insurance policy or credit card....& filing & filing & filing...ya know...enuf so he could have his own personal Shangri-la compound...well big congrats Mr Edwards...I wouldn't ever call you what Ann did...but then again I'm not a 5 time NY Times bestselling author...also before all bash her with great fervor...read her biography and life accomplishments...frikkin gal has worked her tail off...much harded than most...& certainly nothing "given" to her like so many that have the ever-grating gall to shoot off their imbicilic mouths without actually knowing ...oh, maybe about 1/20th of what Ann would know about politics and world history and US law.

Ann Coulter is a homophob.

My psyche Prof told us that we most loudly decry that which we fear in ourselves.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

ARCLIGHT

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 12:50 PM

FMF wrote:
"My psyche Prof told us that we most loudly decry that which we fear in ourselves."

So does that mean you are actually a right wing conservative?
Psycho-babble horsesh*t.
Ann Coulter is a GOD. Put that in your PC pipes and toke the rest of your brains out.

KHYRON

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by arclight:
Ann Coulter is a GOD.

Well, arguably you at least got the gender right.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

www.scifilm.org/reviews3/americanwerewolf.html

"That's so funny sweetie."

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by arclight:

Ann Coulter is a GOD. Put that in your PC pipes and toke the rest of your brains out.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Peeps here are hi-larious!
Arc, your sarcasm is excellent!

LOLChrisisall

MALBADINLATIN

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Sorry, but I think you're totally wrong about that meaning....she was obviously using "that f-t word" in the context of a mama's boy, or girly-man, etc....she knows he's NOT gay for lord's sake..didnt he run for VP back a spell?..can't even kool-aid comotosed liberals recognize sarcasm when they hear it...or is that another rehab qualifier?

Then why didn't she just call Edwards a mama's boy? or a girly man? If what you say is true she shouldn't have had to dig deeper for a more negative slur. Gay of course being more negative. I am also curious where you heard that she only meant girly man, or mama's boy. I don't doubt you but, I hadn't heard that adjustment anywhere else. Or...is it your own Rebulicanesque/Bill Oreilly spin on the matter

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by arclight:
FMF wrote:
"My psyche Prof told us that we most loudly decry that which we fear in ourselves."

So does that mean you are actually a right wing conservative?
Psycho-babble horsesh*t.
Ann Coulter is a GOD. Put that in your PC pipes and toke the rest of your brains out.

I don't "decry" right wing conservatives. They aren't worth the energy.

My My My testy. chill pill

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
Ann Coulter is a liar, her book Slander is riddled with innacuracies and poison for the mind. It's a collection of all the delusions that Republicans love to relax in.
But check this out it's Hi-larious
http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/stories/2003/11/22/annCoultersBeautySec
ret.html

Quote:

Originally posted by yinyang:
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
Coulter is:
1. A man
2. A type of horse
3. Irrelevant in the extreme and whoring for attention
I say ignore him.

Quote:

Originally posted by IlGreven:
Meanwhile, I personally think that there is no one on the left like Ann Coulter is on the right...and the scarier proposition is that she's not the worst of the right-wing loonies...

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I guess the bigger question is, "Would Ann Coulter still sell books if she was not propped up by the Regnery/RW welfare machine?" Probably not. The takeaway message is that the wingnuts will take care of their own.

Quote:

Originally posted by EmpireX:
To me, the most irritating thing about her... well, the second-most irritating thing about her is how FUNNY she thinks she is. There's nothing lamer than someone who thinks they're brilliantly funny when, in reality, they're just pathetic. That, and she makes it embarassing to be white. Seriously. If I could change into a gay-Arab-socialist-illegal immigrant, I totally would, just to spite her.

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"Ann Coulter, right wing goddess"
Would that be the one with snakes for hair?

Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I think she might be Sappho of Lesbos, reincarnated.
Maybe her real problem is that she's a closet bull dyke, and really wants to do it with Rosie O'Donnell on network TV.
And my apologies to closeted bull dykes everywhere.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mavourneen:
What is with her hands???
They look vaguely alien...and this picture isn't 'shopped. It is also readily available on her website.
almost more disturbing than her words are her hands...

Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Well she should know a homosexual when she sees one, what with the adams apple and all.

Why attack the message when it is more fun to attack the messenger. I heard somewhere that those tactics are only found on the right, guess not.

Posting to stir stuff up.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
[B
Why attack the message when it is more fun to attack the messenger. I heard somewhere that those tactics are only found on the right, guess not.

Posting to stir stuff up.

If she/he actually had a message - I might attack it too. However, it opens its mouth, makes a bunch of inflammatory statements and should expect to get the attention it gets.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Why attack the message when it is more fun to attack the messenger. I heard somewhere that those tactics are only found on the right, guess not.

A couple of directions to take this.

I think if you look back you will find that the statement made was that those tactics are found on the right being used by people in positions of power. So if you were to accurately remember rather than (purposefully?) misremember then you would have to say that all the people you have quoted have the same power and influence and audience as Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/Michael Savage/etc. Which I think we both agree is just hilariously wrong.

Have you heard the phrase, "the medium is the message?" Coulter's invective is her message. However, I do agree that it is counterproductive to try and outCoulter Coulter. For one thing, she gets paid to do it.

* addendum: To be very clear. You are conflating two claims into one. The first claim was that, for right-wing authoritarian followers, it will always be about the personality. Notice that there is nothing in that claim about people who are not right-wing authoritarian followers. It does not say that, for people who are not right-wing authoritarian followers, it will never be about personality. The second claim was that there are no equivalent prominent people on the left who attack their opponents the way that many prominent people on the right do. Notice that there is nothing in this claim about everyone on the right or the left, only people in positions of prominence/influence.

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:35 AM

Hey there BDN,

In case you didn't recognize what my post was, it was A JOKE ! You know, b/c most people think of goddesses as luscious things and forget there are the ones with snakes for hair. DUH !

But what is your point? That Coulter should be forgiven for slandering Edwards? For pandering to to right-wing-nuts who love to hear that kind of thing said 'cause they're too chicken-shit to say it themselves?

OR FOR USING FAGGOT AS A DERAGATORY TERM like there is something wrong with being gay?

--------------------------

eenie, meenie, minee, moh
catch a nig ... I mean TIGER by the toe ...

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:35 AM

OOOHHH ! A double.

JKIDDO

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:05 AM

Quote:
Why attack the message when it is more fun to attack the messenger. I heard somewhere that those tactics are only found on the right, guess not.

Better be careful there kid, or next thing you know YOU'LL be on the (s)hit list!

It's a JOKE, man!

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:32 AM

All you brainless, one-word or phrase bashers of Ann & Republicans & Conservatives....ponder this a spell....I and the vast majority of normal traditional American, hard-working family folk think ALL you liberals are faggots....in addition to generally being godless, vile libertines & traitors...but I go off topic & apologize.

Now, do we all think you're all gay????? Probably not...but in the eyes & hearts & souls & time-tested belief-systems of clear-thinking people who are NOT ashamed & embarrassed by the history of their country, etc etc....you're all a sad lot of malcontents, losers, freaks, naive idiots,& faggots...ooooops I said it again...whoops...off to another PC liberal idiot rehab clinic.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
All you brainless, one-word or phrase bashers of Ann & Republicans & Conservatives....ponder this a spell....I and the vast majority of normal traditional American, hard-working family folk think ALL you liberals are faggots....in addition to generally being godless, vile libertines & traitors...but I go off topic & apologize.

Gee, according to the last election the VAST MAJORITY of at least the voting Americans are Democrats.

And as a normal hard-working American I think you are full of

.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
All you brainless, one-word or phrase bashers of Ann & Republicans & Conservatives....ponder this a spell....I and the vast majority of normal traditional American, hard-working family folk think ALL you liberals are faggots....in addition to generally being godless, vile libertines & traitors...but I go off topic & apologize.

Now, do we all think you're all gay????? Probably not...but in the eyes & hearts & souls & time-tested belief-systems of clear-thinking people who are NOT ashamed & embarrassed by the history of their country, etc etc....you're all a sad lot of malcontents, losers, freaks, naive idiots,& faggots...ooooops I said it again...whoops...off to another PC liberal idiot rehab clinic.

It's okay to admit that you're afraid, Jongsstraw. The real world is a scary place and those that aren't like you can be scary as hell. I understand that you're terrified of those that are different from you and need to lash out to hide that terror.

I'd offer to give you a hug and make it all better but that's just not my style.

GEEZER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:27 AM

Let's see...

For Ann Coulter to suggest that John Edwards shares attributes commonly (if erroneously) attributed to homosexuals is slander, a lie, a fraud, and should not be accepted by anyone.

For multiple posters to suggest that Ann Coulter bathes in virgins' blood, enjoys taking it up the a** while listening to liberal viewpoints, is a transvestite, has had a sex change, etc., is just good fun.

Do I detect a slight case of double standard here?

Not expecting a reasonable answer Geezer.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
A couple of directions to take this.
I think if you look back you will find that the statement made was that those tactics are found on the right being used by people in positions of power. So if you were to accurately remember rather than (purposefully?) misremember then you would have to say that all the people you have quoted have the same power and influence and audience as Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/Michael Savage/etc. Which I think we both agree is just hilariously wrong.

Think on a much smaller scale, like say an internet forum.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 17:13
For the authoritarian followers it will always be about personalities. A key tell is that they will often bring up other personalities that they think you are devoted to with the same fervor of their own. It's almost a given that whenever you bring up a negative about one of the right wing authorian followers beloved personalities they will bring up Clinton. It's a tactic that they use - go after personality - because it's what works on them.

I think you were refering to this forum and not people in positions of power with that quote. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Quote:

However, I do agree that it is counterproductive to try and outCoulter Coulter. For one thing, she gets paid to do it.

Well said.

Quote:

* addendum: To be very clear. You are conflating two claims into one. The first claim was that, for right-wing authoritarian followers, it will always be about the personality. Notice that there is nothing in that claim about people who are not right-wing authoritarian followers. It does not say that, for people who are not right-wing authoritarian followers, it will never be about personality.

But one should aspire to rise above the petty personal attacks and stick to the politics.

Quote:

The second claim was that there are no equivalent prominent people on the left who attack their opponents the way that many prominent people on the right do. Notice that there is nothing in this claim about everyone on the right or the left, only people in positions of prominence/influence.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_c
ontent_id=1003548043
Would you consider any of the people named in this article as being in positions of prominence?

Posting to stir stuff up.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:33 AM

I never said she liad, was slanderous or a fraud. (Or indeed that she took it up the ass, I mean who said that was a bad thing anyway?) I resorted to the childhood truth of "takes one to know one" - by the by - my GAY SON is also sure sge has an adams apple.

My problem with her is that she opens her mouth. Period. She has no redeeming social value. All she does is create drama. She is NOT NICE and I do not like her.

Oh yeah, and she is a Republican. Proof she is stoooopid.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:46 AM

Slick,

When someone gets paid big bucks to stand up in front of the Democrtic Party machine and officially say these things, you'll have a point. Until then, you're just off-message, as ususal.

Slick, and Pointless ...

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
In case you didn't recognize what my post was, it was A JOKE ! You know, b/c most people think of goddesses as luscious things and forget there are the ones with snakes for hair. DUH !

You would have a point if the term goddess was not used sarcastically in the thread's title.

Quote:

But what is your point? That Coulter should be forgiven for slandering Edwards? For pandering to to right-wing-nuts who love to hear that kind of thing said 'cause they're too chicken-shit to say it themselves?

But isn't that her point? Which brings into question the point of this thread. News flash, today Ann Coulter was Ann Coulter.

Quote:

OR FOR USING FAGGOT AS A DERAGATORY TERM like there is something wrong with being gay?

There is nothing wrong with being gay, to each his/her own.

Quote:

eenie, meenie, minee, moh
catch a nig ... I mean TIGER by the toe ...

Was this simply to date yourself or were your intentions more nefarious?

Posting to stir stuff up.

YINYANG

Thursday, March 8, 2007 4:10 AM

I think all of our nasty suggestions don't even come close to things she has actually said.

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 4:25 AM

Rue "You know, b/c most people think of goddesses as luscious things and forget there are the ones with snakes for hair. DUH !"
BDN "You would have a point if the term goddess was not used sarcastically in the thread's title."
Rue It was? I thought it implied Coulter WAS a goddess to the right-wing-nuts.

Rue "But what is your point?"
BDN "But isn't that her point?"
Rue I think you went in too many circles. You missed your exit.

Rue "OR FOR USING FAGGOT AS A DERAGATORY TERM"
BDN "There is nothing wrong with being gay"
Rue See below

Rue "catch a nig ... I mean TIGER by the toe ..."
BDN "or were your intentions more nefarious"
Rue You recognized nigger as slander, but discounted faggot. Why did you do that?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, March 8, 2007 5:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Rue "OR FOR USING FAGGOT AS A DERAGATORY TERM"
BDN "There is nothing wrong with being gay"
Rue See below

Rue "catch a nig ... I mean TIGER by the toe ..."
BDN "or were your intentions more nefarious"
Rue You recognized nigger as slander, but discounted faggot. Why did you do that?

Rue,
If you used the quote function perhaps you would not misrepresent other posters positions.
You posted the following,

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
OR FOR USING FAGGOT AS A DERAGATORY TERM like there is something wrong with being gay?

Faggot does have another meaning where nigger does not. I was agreeing that using faggot in it's deragatory form is wrong and there is nothing wrong with being gay. I hope this helps clarify my position.

Posting to stir stuff up.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 6:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I think you were refering to this forum and not people in positions of power with that quote. Please correct me if I am wrong.

See the addendum that you quoted from.

Quote:

But one should aspire to rise above the petty personal attacks and stick to the politics.

Sure. Nice sentiment. And, guess what, I'll completely put down the snark when people stop making tons of money calling for the death of millions of Americans.

Quote:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_c
ontent_id=1003548043
Would you consider any of the people named in this article as being in positions of prominence?

Okay, so you're using an example of the campaign staff of two Democratic politicians going back and forth at each other as a counter to prominent conservative/Republicans smearing millions of people? Just wanted to make sure that's the equivalence that you're trying to set-up here.

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Let's see...

For Ann Coulter to suggest that John Edwards shares attributes commonly (if erroneously) attributed to homosexuals is slander, a lie, a fraud, and should not be accepted by anyone.

For multiple posters to suggest that Ann Coulter bathes in virgins' blood, enjoys taking it up the a** while listening to liberal viewpoints, is a transvestite, has had a sex change, etc., is just good fun.

Do I detect a slight case of double standard here?

Not expecting a reasonable answer Geezer.

I can see what you're saying but I think there are some significant differences that you're leaving out. There's a lot of sentiment in this thread that I don't consider proud-worthy (I'm not quite sure how to describe this but it's basically the opposite of, "You just made your parents proud."). It's not the high point of discussion on RWED, that's for sure. But enough concern trolling from me. I think there is a wide swath of comments that are getting lumped together indiscriminantly. However, not one of the people who posted in this thread will be hired to speak at a large gathering because of the comments they made here.

Ann Coulter is hired to speak and write books precisely because she expresses the sentiments she does. Who hires her to write books? Who hires her to come and talk? On what end of the political spectrum lies her target audience?

Ann Coulter has the explicit support of the Republican Party. Her comments have the explicit support of the Republican Party. By this point in time, when you hire her to come and talk, you know exactly what you're getting. The crowd reaction to her faggot comment was quite positive. They got exactly what they wanted and expected.

She has explicitly advocated violence against those who do not share her views. If you look at her vector it ends in lynch mobs.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, March 8, 2007 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
John Edwards, gay or not, sees dead people, talks to dead people, and unlike most Democrats, cannot get them to vote for him.

Priceless.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, March 8, 2007 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FMF:
When someone gets paid big bucks to stand up in front of the Democrtic Party machine and officially say these things, you'll have a point. Until then, you're just off-message, as ususal.

Jesse Jackson happens to say derogatory remarks every time he opens his mouth. I find him to be one of the most offensive and dispicable humans alive and a complete waste of flesh and all of the food he's consumed his entire life which could have been going to poor innercity youths he was supposed to be speaking for as he laughed all the way to the bank. He happened to make boatloads of money off of being a race-baiting hatemonger himself, but most of his message I'm sure he would have whored out for free, if given the chance.

At least I think he was Demoncrat.... I could be wrong here though. I was only a kid when his opinion mattered to anybody from either side.

I know I'm supposed to be staying out of RWED, but it's very hard for me. I'm bored at work and I like reading the posts in here even if I don't want to be in the middle of all the crap anymore. I've tried not to post much, but I do see an overwhelming Liberal bias in here, as usual, and I just think that the playing field needs to be leveled a bit. Does anybody in here from either side of the Repuglicrat spectrum really believe that "their party" is really any better for the overall good and future of mankind?

"Anyway you look at it you lose" - Paul Simon/Art Garfunkel

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

YINYANG

Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I've tried not to post much, but I do see an overwhelming Liberal bias in here, as usual, and I just think that the playing field needs to be leveled a bit.

Point me in the direction of something Democrat-related that's equally as disturbing as the one I posted and I'll put that one up, too. And, I think the liberal bias comes from the fact that it's really hard to be as conservative, much less more, than Coulter. (Who the hell wants to be on this woman's side? Seriously?)

It almost even sounds like a good idea to say she could have been initially propped up by the Democrats so they could point to Republicans and say, "Look at this." And, if that wwas the case, it backfired the day someone took her seriously.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_c
ontent_id=1003548043
Would you consider any of the people named in this article as being in positions of prominence?

Okay, so you're using an example of the campaign staff of two Democratic politicians going back and forth at each other as a counter to prominent conservative/Republicans smearing millions of people? Just wanted to make sure that's the equivalence that you're trying to set-up here.

The article was linked in response to your following quote.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The second claim was that there are no equivalent prominent people on the left who attack their opponents the way that many prominent people on the right do. Notice that there is nothing in this claim about everyone on the right or the left, only people in positions of prominence/influence.

IMHO, Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama are responsible for the actions of their respective staffs. I would consider both of them to presently be in positions of prominence.
David Geffen raised a boat load of money for Obama at his 'Giant Hollywood Fundraiser' and his most recent attack against the Clintons made every national entertainment show. I would consider him to be in a position of prominence.
South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford is certainley in a position of prominence in South Carolina.
James Carville is a nationally known pundit who regularly appears on television and movies. I would consider him in a position of prominence.

Posting to stir stuff up.

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 5:07 PM

6-string,

Jesse Jackson calls himself a democrat. But he isn't invited to get up in front of the party faithful to spew hate. (And PLEASE find me some quotes from him that are as inflamatory as Coulter's AND made in a similar situation.) Ann Coulter is an official mouthpiece of the repubicans. That's the difference. (I just put repubicans in there to balance the name-calling on the other side.)

RUE

Thursday, March 8, 2007 5:21 PM

Nobody,

You still aren't finding equivalent examples either in the attacks or the context. Did anyone call Obama a nigger in an official party function? Has anyone called Clinton a Kike-lover under those circumstances?

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, March 8, 2007 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
All you brainless, one-word or phrase bashers of Ann & Republicans & Conservatives....ponder this a spell....I and the vast majority of normal traditional American, hard-working family folk think ALL you liberals are faggots....in addition to generally being godless, vile libertines & traitors...but I go off topic & apologize.

Now, do we all think you're all gay????? Probably not...but in the eyes & hearts & souls & time-tested belief-systems of clear-thinking people who are NOT ashamed & embarrassed by the history of their country, etc etc....you're all a sad lot of malcontents, losers, freaks, naive idiots,& faggots...ooooops I said it again...whoops...off to another PC liberal idiot rehab clinic.

Wow...how does somebody get that mad?...Anyhow, let's review.

Democrats/Liberals are: Brainless, faggots, godless, vile, traitors, malcontents, losers, freaks, naive idiots.

Reublican/Conservatives are: Normal, hard working, family folk, clear thinking.

I go to church, and from what I remember, Jesus teaches tolerance.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The second claim was that there are no equivalent prominent people on the left who attack their opponents the way that many prominent people on the right do. Notice that there is nothing in this claim about everyone on the right or the left, only people in positions of prominence/influence.

IMHO, Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama are responsible for the actions of their respective staffs. I would consider both of them to presently be in positions of prominence.
David Geffen raised a boat load of money for Obama at his 'Giant Hollywood Fundraiser' and his most recent attack against the Clintons made every national entertainment show. I would consider him to be in a position of prominence.
South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford is certainley in a position of prominence in South Carolina.
James Carville is a nationally known pundit who regularly appears on television and movies. I would consider him in a position of prominence.

Here's a quote from Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Here's another one: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too."

And another: "Some liberals have become even too crazy for Texas to execute, which is a damn shame. They're always saying -- we're oppressed, we're oppressed so let's do it. Let's oppress them."

And one more: "Why hasn't the former spokesman for the Taliban matriculating at Yale been beaten even more senseless than he already is? According to Hollywood, this nation is a cauldron of ethnic hatreds positively brimming with violent skinheads. Where are the skinheads when you need them? What does a girl have to do to get an angry, club- and torch-wielding mob on its feet?"

I could go on and on.

Now let's go back to what I said and highlight the relevant portion of the sentence: "The second claim was that there are no equivalent prominent people on the left who attack their opponents the way that many prominent people on the right do."

So bring your best Geffen, Ford and Carville quotes and let's see them doing the same things Ann Coulter is doing.

* all quotes courtesty of Dave Niewert at Orcinus ( http://dneiwert.blogspot.com ).

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
Quote:

I go to church, and from what I remember, Jesus teaches tolerance.

Only if ya go to one of those "Commie, LIBERAL" denominations.

IN "true" Christian faith churches, if ya don't believe exactly what they telll ya, and follow along exactly, you'll go to Hell.
ANd they may help you along with bullets, or a stake and a big fire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 9, 2007 4:08 AM

Assuming this debate is ONLY about what Ann Coulter said then, and not which party is better (because they are both REALLY BAD for all of us), I guess I really can't find a recent example of a Demoncrat saying anything near as inflamatory as what she said, given the entirely different social climate we have today as opposed to 30 or 40 years ago. There is no denying that if these remarks were made 30 or 40 years ago, they wouldn't get anywhere near the amount of attention that they are getting today.

I'm not trying to say that there wouldn't have been people who were offended, particularly homosexuals, but the religious right pretty much owned the media back then and taking into consideration that the overall sexual climate in the media was pretty sterile back then, there wouldn't have been a very large opposition seen in the media. Let's face facts here. There are plenty of people even today who find all of the homosexuality on TV today just as offensive as what Anne Coulter had to say (think uber-gay Snickers commercial during the Superbowl and Prince's shadow stroking his phallic guitar during the halftime show.) And then ask yourself, is it really necessary to show two men kissing during the ultimate yearly fest of manlyness at 7:00PM on Sunday when kids are watching? I don't consider myself a homophobe, and although the Prince thing didn't even trigger my gaydar when I saw it I know that watching that Snickers commercial, especially being tricked into watching it, is just uncomfortable to me and I know I can go without that in the future.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0305072fcc4.html

Interesting link that shows about 15 actual complaints to the FCC about the Superbowl this year. Even if you don't agree with them, you'll find it funny to read.

All that being said, I think the closest "outrageous" remark made by the Liberals recently would be Bill Maher's comment about Cheeney. Don't get me wrong here... I'm a big fan of Bill Maher (I wish I still had HBO so I could still watch Real Time), and I personally don't have any opposition to his thoughts there, but the arguement that what he said is equally inflamatory is not that much of a stretch, and I think is being unfairly dismissed by the liberals in here.

All I'm saying is that it's very easy to hate the Repuglicans for the situation we're in, I KNOW I DO. Yet, I still find myself waiting on the Demoncrats to bring our boys and girls home now like they said they would, yet that two-faced bitch Pelosi wants to spend more money on troops now.

Quote:
By House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 11/17/2006 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy-pelosi/bringing-the-war-to-an-
en_b_34393.html

"Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker"

"This unnecessary pre-emptive war has come at great cost. Nearly 2,900 of our brave troops have lost their lives and more than 21,000 more have suffered lasting wounds. Since the war began, Congress has appropriated more than $350 billion, and the United States has suffered devastating damage to our reputation in the eyes of the world."

"We will honor the trust of the American people; we will not disappoint."

So far, so good..... right?

.....but.......

Quote:
By House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 12/05/2006

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16057734/

“We will not cut off funding for the troops,” Pelosi said. “Absolutely not,” she said.

LIP SERVICE

Quote:
“Let me remove all doubt in anyone’s mind; as long as our troops are in harm’s way, Democrats will be there to support them, but… we will have oversight over that funding,” she said.

MORE LIP SERVICE

Quote:
Incoming Demoncrat Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

“None of us want to fail; none of us want to see Iraq as a failure,” said incoming Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

That's nice, but not exactly what the Democratic voters were concerned about when they voted you guys into majority, was it Steny? And you KNOW that.

Quote:
“We better find another way to get t

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, March 9, 2007 6:24 AM

A few additions to your post, 6ixStringJack.

You weren't the only one offended by the Snickers SuperBowl commercial. Gay rights activists mounted a successful campaign to get Snickers to not air that commercial anymore. So you share something in common with the gay rights movement. Athough, since you were offended for an entirely different reason than they were, I guess we can't call you a member of that movement. Baby steps.

There is tremendous tension in the Democratic Party leadership right now. The liberal side of the party - which unfortunately, from my point of view, is nowhere near being in the majority of the congressional delegation - is losing to the corporatist side of the party. The corporatist side of the party (the DLC, or the Blue Dog Democrats) want to do pretty much what the Republicans did while they were in the majority: punt Iraq down the road while lining their pockets from the lobbyists.

The progressive caucus of the Democratic Party is trying to get us out of Iraq. But they are so far being shut out of the debate by the DLC and the Blue Dogs.

The activist community (which supports the progressive Democratic politicians) is moving to line up primary challengers for the Blue Dog Democrats in 2008. This tactic had mixed success in 2006. Jane Harmon modified her positions after a primary challenge from the left, although she is still nowhere near as progressive as her district. Joe Lieberman blew off the wishes of his local party and was reelected thanks to the backing of the Republican Party and the support of the DLC.

What needs to happen is for representatives to be voted out of office in 2008 if they do nothing to get us out of Iraq. We had three years of Republican control that did nothing so that pretty much covers all of their representatives. After two months of Democratic control, it's starting to become clear who the Democratic politicians who want to stay the course are.

So get to work.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 9, 2007 7:53 AM

I was unaware that gay rights activists had gotten the Snickers commercial off the air. Please send them my thanks. I'm curious as to why they would even do that in the first place though. I also think that it is pretty funny that they managed to do it without the whole world knowing about it. You can't deny the fact that if anybody else were to try to get that commercial off the air they would be labeled as intolerant or homophobes or hate monguers or "Coulterites."

If you had a link, I'd love to read more about it.

Again, I don't know from your post the reason they were offended by the commercial (other than the possibility that the guys weren't metro enough), but I can imagine that they must have been offended for much different reasons than anybody who went to the FCC about it. I myself never said I was offended, but it did make me uncomfortable to watch it, particularly around my family during the Superbowl, and I don't see a problem with feeling that way or saying so. If they want to air that commercial on Bravo or during the commercial breaks when TBS runs the Birdcage or reruns of Will and Grace, I wouldn't have a problem with it, nor would I have seen it in the first place. It's not as if I'm coming at anybody and telling them that they can't feel like they need another mans penis on their asshole, so I would appreciate the same sentiment from anybody else, thank you very much. You don't have to be religious to appreciate the Golden Rule. Baby steps nothin.... I don't speak actively against homosexuals, I wouldn't dream of burning crosses on their lawns, and being a believer in the right to make ones own decisions I certainly don't want the Government coming in and telling people that they can't sleep with whoever they want to sleep with (baring children, of course), but at the same time I don't feel that it's too much to ask that people who don't want to see those images don't have to see them. Acceptance via shoving it down my throat is not acceptable, period.

As for everything you have to say about the Dems/Libs.. I'm sure you're right to a certain extent, though I can tell you that a runaway Liberal government is a very scary thing in my eyes too. I'll find myself inhaling rubber cement because they'll completely make cigarettes illegal, and maybe we'll be able to chat in person one day in the bread line when they turn USA into a Communist country in 8 years. Shit... even the Repugs seem more like Communists every day.

I know that when people I know voted for Bush they certainly didn't want him to give amnesty to illegals, and a true Conservative would never even imagine doing such a thing. This is just an example of the other side whoring for votes. It makes me sick. Demon and Repugs are not what they used to be. In all truth there is very little that even seperates the two of them anymore. There are individuals on both sides who I truly believe are good people who believe in the Constitution and have their constituents best interests at heart, but they will always be overshadowed and shot down by the majority in both parties who are so in bed with corporations and each other that they don't give a shit what average Joe Nobody thinks.

As for your idea of voting out our reps in 2008, your damn right. I say we purge them all. They should all be impeached and shamed publicly, with all of their assets froze, and they should be stripped of their bloated retirement packages. Make them live our lives and see how their rule effects the average guy. Again though, you can't blame all of the Repuglican reps, just as you can't blame all of the Demoncrat reps. There is a little bit of good on both sides... it's just sickening how the actions of the majority of both sides show us the absolute worst of humanity on a daily basis, consequentially making all of the conservative voters hate liberals and vice versa.

Divided we fall.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.co

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, March 9, 2007 8:09 AM

Here's a vanilla article that provides a few details on the Snickers commercial: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/business/media/06adco.html?ex=117358
9200&en=8ee3ec3dbc84fc29&ei=5070

Quote:
excerpted from nytimes article
...
Of course, not all buzz is good buzz. The commercial for Snickers — created by TBWA/Chiat/Day, part of the TBWA Worldwide division of Omnicom — drew intense criticism as well as some praise.

In addition to complaining that the Snickers commercial itself was homophobic, organizations like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign, also complained about video clips that went up after the game on the special Web site, which showed the two men committing additional violent acts against themselves and each other. There were also interviews with members of the Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts in which they offered disgusted reactions to the accidental kiss.

“As with all of our Snickers advertising, our goal was to capture the attention of our core Snickers consumer, primarily 18-to-24-year-old adult males,” said a spokeswoman for Masterfoods, Alice Nathanson. “Feedback from our target consumers has been positive, and many media and Web site commentators on this year’s Super Bowl lineup ranked the commercial among this year’s best.”

“We know that humor is highly subjective and we understand that some consumers have found the commercial offensive,” Ms. Nathanson said, adding: “Clearly that was not our intent. We do not plan to continue the ad on television or on our Web site.”
...

For more details on what was offensive and screencaps from the rest of the ads that were available on the website, you could read this post over at AMERICAblog: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-superbowl-web-site-pr
omotes.html (FYI, AMERICAblog is run by a well known gay rights activist so that's the point of view you'll be getting).

* edited to add:

The main criticism of the ad, from the perspective of the gay rights activists, was that it sent the message that kissing another man was so utterly terrible that it would require you to harm yourself to make amends. However, as the blogger at AMERICAblog wrote, the ad that aired was pretty mild in that respect and he probably would've passed if it had just been that one. But it was part of another series of commercials on the website that involved more violence.

Quote:
from AMERICAblog
Ad 4: "Wrench" (these are the actual names Snickers gave the ads). The two guys accidentally kiss, they say to each other again "quick, do something manly," and one guy proceeds to pick up a huge oversized wrench and violently attack the other guy, while the second takes the first and throws him under the hood of the car, slamming it down on his head. Yes, the appropriate reaction to a guy kissing you is to beat the crap out of the guy who kissed you. Maybe Snickers should rename this ad "Matthew Shepard."

I guess if you have spent your entire life worrying about getting the shit beat out of you simply for who you are attracted to then I can see where this ad would touch a nerve. I personally have never had to be concerned that my attraction to women will be reviled by people.

As far as seeing two men kissing, it's human behavior to me. Nothing more nothing less. I don't get all bent out of shape when I see a hetero couple kissing seeing as how it's really none of my business. I was raised in a very homophobic environment so I totally get the reaction that the ad is playing off. Hell, if two guys had openly kissed at my high school they would've had to run pretty far and pretty fast. In other words, no homosexual in his right mind would've come out of the closet at my high school. Which says some not too cool things about the society I grew up in. It took quite a while for me to realize that two people sharing their affection for each other is something to be celebrated no matter what gender they are. And I still have to remind myself of that sometimes when the old reflexes kic

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 9, 2007 9:23 AM

Hehe... just as I suspected. It was because the guys in the Snicker's commercial weren't "metro" enough, rather they were "butch" as John Aravosis likes to call them. I'd probably make a great gay guy... not only did I pick up on that but I'm not too hard on the eyes either. My gaydar seems to be right on the money.

Of course I jest. I guess I had no idea that somebody would take that stance against the commercial, then again I've never actually read any gay point of view on pretty much anything before. Of course I didn't know about the multiple endings or the NFL player's reactions either before I read that article, so I missed about 90% of the content in question here. I can sympathize with their point about the violence. I see their point that the commercials may have been saying that it was better to die by poisoning or bludgeon yourself and others to death rather than be gay, and I wouldn't be to happy about somebody saying that it's better to drink poison than be white and be unable to dance.

As far as the NFL player's reactions though, what did they really expect? What John doesn't seem to understand is that there is still a majority of the people in the nation, and especially the world, who think that homosexuality is wrong. There is an overall level of tolerance, but it irks most folk still. I'd say I'm pretty progressive myself in that I am ambivalent on the issue. As my late Uncle once said, "may the homosexuals fuck each other on the steps of City Hall for all I care." What he meant by that was that he never wished harm against anybody who was gay, but he just didn't want to have to read about it or see it every day on TV or hear about it on the radio all the time. Demanding tolerance is something any civilized person can understand and sympathize with. Demanding that everyone accept homosexuality as good and normal as well as demanding anyone who has any objections about it to shut up, particularly "role models", is quite another thing.

Just as it's not the place for somebody to come and tell a gay couple they can no longer see each other because being gay is not allowed by law, nobody should be able to come into somebodies house and tell them that they had better accept homosexuality or else. Understanding comes when both parties can concede on certain issues. I think right now that the gay community should be happy with the fact that gay kids can come out in school and not be found a week later swinging from a tree in the middle of the woods. I say, as long as there's no violence against gays anymore then they've already won. What is there to gain from grossing out people with homosexual ads who find homosexuality disgusting?

I'm not trying to be offensive with this comparison here, so please hear me out before you make any accusations. To give you another idea of what I'm talking about I'll use the example of modern day horror movies, and my interactions with them. I've never seen any of the Saw movies. I've never seen Descent. I've never seen The Hills Have Eyes, nor do I intend to see the sequel. I grew up on horror flicks and I used to be rather addicted to them, but one day I woke up and, for whatever reason, decided that I didn't want to put any of that imagery in my mind anymore... at least, I didn't want to put any more of it in there. My mind may change tomorrow, but for going on 5 years now, I have not seen a horror flick of any kind... no gratuitous blood and gore. The beauty of that, is that other people can go on watching horror flicks when they want to. I never said to anybody or cried to the Government that they should not be shown on TV anymore.

Now consider Queer Eye, or The L Word, or Queer as Folk, or the aformentioned Birdcage... Personally, I don't ever want to watch any of that. Does that make me a homophobe? I don't know. Maybe it does. I don't like Westerns either so maybe I'm a Cowboyophobe too, or an Indianphobe for that matter. What would my aversion to horror flicks make me anyways? A Frightaphobe? A Scareaphobe? A Phobeophobe p

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, March 9, 2007 9:57 AM

Quote:
As far as the NFL player's reactions though, what did they really expect? What John doesn't seem to understand is that there is still a majority of the people in the nation, and especially the world, who think that homosexuality is wrong.

Oh, I think pretty much any American homosexual is aware of that viewpoint. You'd have to be pretty well insulated from the world to not be. Maybe there's a couple of guys living on Castro Street in San Francisco who don't read the news or watch the television. But that would be about it. It's kind of hard to get away from the fact that the fear of gay marriage is a huge fund-raiser and vote getter.

I agree with you that a substantial portion of the American public just does not want to be reminded of homosexuality. And they aren't yet ready to think of this as a civil rights issue. Maybe they'll never be. My grandfather went to his grave bitching that, "Why can't the blacks (not the word he used) be happy with {insert whatever here}..."

Quote:
I think right now that the gay community should be happy with the fact that gay kids can come out in school and not be found a week later swinging from a tree in the middle of the woods. I say, as long as there's no violence against gays anymore then they've already won. What is there to gain from grossing out people with homosexual ads who find homosexuality disgusting?

Well, there is still violence against gays. Not as much as before. That's a fact. But it's not entirely gone. And, as with any oppressed minority group, I think the idea is that you don't stop fighting until you have protected equal rights (and then you have to keep fighting to make sure those rights aren't taken away). Whether or not they will achieve that in the near future remains to be seen. Each generation gets a bit more tolerant. But it's a two steps forward one step back kind of deal.

Quote:
I just think it was a dirty trick and bad form for them to blatently display a homosexual act on the one night of the year that garners the most consolidated viewership in America, ensuring that the maximum amount of people in the country were going to see it at the same time.

I think the intent of the commercial was to provoke precisely that reaction: that the product was so good that it would lead you to engage in something that you personally found disgusting. The commercial doesn't work if the audience isn't as disgusted by two men's lips touching as the people who's lips touched. So I'm not sure I buy that this would be seen as a huge win for homosexuals. It actually seems like more of a setback to me.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 9, 2007 10:45 AM

Yeah, I suppose you'd be right that most of them are aware of it. I gotta remember to put myself in other people's shoes more often I guess. I get the same shit on a daily basis from non-smokers and the rediculous way the government is treating us. I share your disgust with the fact that homosexuality can be used as a platform for fundraising and vote getting, but I think it's just as disgusting when the Demons do it as when the Repugs do it. I'm assuming, of course, that you're only refering to the Repugs here, but I could be wrong.

I agree that this is a big civil rights issue, though because I've personally gotten over the hump, I don't feel the need to be reminded about it all the time. You say that maybe most people will never view this as a civil rights issue, but I believe that many people today do. Even people who find it disgusting personally still respect the rights of others. Hell, a lot of churches are even opening their doors to homosexuals. I still laugh about that because if God's up there and really said anything printed in that book there's going to be a lot of suprised Christians waking up one morning with fire licking their toes. Sometimes one might get the feeling from reading blogs like this that everybody wants to enforce their will upon you, but I think that most folk just want to be left alone to go and do whatever bad shit it is they do when they know nobody is watching. Not that I'm implying that homosexuality is bad, but to somebody who thinks it is, I'm sure they do plenty of things that are bad themselves and who the hell are they to judge anyhow?

I think Mal would just look the other way and say 'Ain't none of my business and that's the way I look at a lot of things. It's going to be real hard telling me, as a smoker, that I have to go hide when I smoke, yet homosexuals can make out whereever they want for the world to see though. If I have to smoke in a closed off room with vents, then our sexual behavior should be behind closed doors as well. I've said in another thread here that a good friend of mine is gay. He knows I'm not, and he's never made an advancement on me. I'm mighty appreciative about that because if he were to do that it would put a serious strain on our relationship. I've even said in here that I've gone to a gay bar with him and a girl one time. I've never been back to one. It weirded me out something awful, but he thought I was a real good sport to go along. The thing was, I chose to put myself in that environment and I had only myself to blame for seeing what I was seeing and actually being hit on by other guys. (I wish I got hit on by girls like that lol). Just don't think folk need to be suprised by it on TV like that is all.

I'm sure there is still violence against gays. It's sad, but true. It's human nature to be violent. There's violence against everybody. Any prick that would actually do physical harm to another human being is going to do it regardless. If they didn't beat up the "homo", they'd beat up the black kid or the mexican or the guy who looked at his girlfriend wrong, or if all else fails they can be completely unoriginal and just beat up the kid that looks the most like Doogie Howser at school. Nothing you can do but punish them and make an example of them. I think that they should be able to get married in any court of law. I also think they shouldn't be denied benefits for their spouses if they have a job that offers insurance benefits to your spouse. I don't think that any government office should ever have the power to go to a church and demand that they allow gay people to get married though, and I don't believe that the Boy Scouts should have to allow gay people to be troop leaders if they don't want to. It pisses me off when Troops can't camp at campgrounds they've been going to for years because they're "intolerant". The Boyscouts and the Churches have been around forever and have established themselves on certain principals. I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong, but if homosexuals and sympatheti

JKIDDO

Friday, March 9, 2007 5:30 PM

I'm more digusted by near-naked women humping cars, motorcycles, credit cards and bottles of beer than by two guys accidentally tuching lips. Just because we're bombarded by the same Pavlovian training every day (when you see this card think of getting laid by a pneumatic babe who doesn't have a thought in her head) doesn't make it right.

Come to think of it I guess I'm offended by marketing. Period.

JKIDDO

Friday, March 9, 2007 5:51 PM

Quote:
For Ann Coulter to suggest that John Edwards shares attributes commonly (if erroneously) attributed to homosexuals is slander, a lie, a fraud, and should not be accepted by anyone. For multiple posters to suggest that Ann Coulter bathes in virgins' blood, enjoys taking it up the a** while listening to liberal viewpoints, is a transvestite, has had a sex change, etc., is just good fun. Do I detect a slight case of double standard here?

I plead the Ann Coulter defense again... It's a JOKE, man! If Ann couldn't take it, I'm sure she wouldn't be dishing it out.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:49 AM

I wanted to let you know, 6ixStringJack, that I've enjoyed this discussion. I don't really have anything to add beyond that.

Well, this is kind of a side note, really, that was sparked by reading your posts. I live in the Bay Area so I had a front row seat when the new mayor of San Francisco announced that the city would be issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. I remember the arguments and the counter-arguments going back and forth. And the slew of amendments banning gay marriage that passed during the next election were seen as a setback for the gay rights movement directly related to the step forward that those ceremonies represented.

There's strategy and tactics, and maybe it wasn't the most strategic decision to show the country hundreds of gay and lesbian couples getting married. But all that goes out the window when I remember the look on those faces. The first couple that got married were a couple of gray-haired lesbians who had been together for around forty years. Why would they feel the need, after all that time, to make it official? Because they couldn't before. They never even had the option. It was clear that this was so very important to them, this legal recognition of the decision that they made so very long ago.

I don't know where that fits into all this, or even if it does.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, March 10, 2007 9:28 AM

I have enjoyed this conversation too SoupCatcher. A lot of my talks in here don't go that way it seems, so I'm glad that we were able to have an intelligent and thought provoking discussion. We did kinda jack their thread... lol. Ahhhhh... It sure did help pass a slow night at work anyways. To be honest, I was figurin' on about 30 messages in my mailbox today indicating that I had been brutalized and yelled at all day when I was gone. I'm still trying to figure out why that didn't happen. Maybe I actually did make some sense this time and showed a bit more understanding for the other point of view. Pat on the back for me if that's the reason and it's not because people are just sick of arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

Funny you mention the old women getting married. My grandma's sister and her "friend" lived together for years. They both died when I was young, but I do remember them both fondly. When my great aunt passed away her friend really got the shaft because the money which my aunt had, which was very sizeable, and her large house went to her sister (not my grandma who was basically written out of her mother's and sister's will's too because rich Irish girls don't marry poor Polocks) and her friend had to move out of the house. From what I hear it was a very bitter ordeal. That always rubbed me wrong. I really liked her friend, and of course, being as young as I was at the time I didn't have any idea what was really going on. Maybe today people don't have to go through that.

As a side note here, the racism in my family between different white folks ensured that the only part of the family fortune I ever saw was $5,000 towards college.... or was it only $2,500? I can't recall. My Grandma and Grandpa were like a 1940's version of Romeo and Juliet. They met at a grocery store my Grandpa worked at and he managed to sneak her extra condiments and stuff back in the war days when they put limits on your purchases for food and gas. Her family hated him instantly because of his Polish background. It's kinda funny how we think of racism today as black and white and brown when most of us mixed blood white folk have blood of peoples who hated each other inside of us.

Anyways... Like I said before, I just don't want the law going into churches and Boy Scout troops and such places and telling them how to run things. There are plenty of oppurtunities for everyone out there and if these organizations refuse to change their policies, that is thier choice to make and not BigGov's. There is plenty of oppurtunity in America and the gay community and its supporters need to make its own organizations which will probably outnumber the old ones anyways given a span of 5 or so generations. Let the people decide for themselves.

One more thought that I should add is that there is really no saying how happy I am that the Administration never passed a ban on gay marrage as an ammendment to the Constitution. She's already scarred badly enough what with the other little Prohibition incident just about 100 years ago now. If we go and put too much stuff on her that's just bound to get taken right back off, ain't nobody going to take her seriously anymore. Sadly, too many people already don't......

Thanks again for the discussion. I think conversations like that really make those guys on Hardball look like major assholes. Have a good weekend. I'm outta here in 3 more hours and I'll be gone for a while.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

GEEZER

Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Ann Coulter is hired to speak and write books precisely because she expresses the sentiments she does. Who hires her to write books? Who hires her to come and talk? On what end of the political spectrum lies her target audience?

Ann Coulter has the explicit support of the Republican Party. Her comments have the explicit support of the Republican Party. By this point in time, when you hire her to come and talk, you know exactly what you're getting. The crowd reaction to her faggot comment was quite positive. They got exactly what they wanted and expected.

She has explicitly advocated violence against those who do not share her views. If you look at her vector it ends in lynch mobs.

So she's the right's Michael Moore, except she doesn't make films, and makes up a bit less of her facts?

No. She's an entertainer. She went the opposite direction of, say, Al Franken. He went from comic to commentator - she went from commentator to entertainer. I'd put her in the bracket with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, March 11, 2007 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So she's the right's Michael Moore, except she doesn't make films, and makes up a bit less of her facts?

No. She's an entertainer. She went the opposite direction of, say, Al Franken. He went from comic to commentator - she went from commentator to entertainer. I'd put her in the bracket with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Ah, the old false-equivalency chestnut.

So Michael Moore has his security forceably remove a member of his own political party who disagrees with him? [As happened to a Republican critic of Coulter at CPAC]

So Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert have called for members of their audience to rise up and attack those who protest them? [As Ann Coulter did at Loyola University in Chicago last year, heckling her supporters with taunts like, "You're men. You're heterosexuals. Take them out." until there was a physical confrontation].

It's going to be kind of hard for you to defend the Republican Party's official embrace of Ann Coulter, Geezer, if she continues to make statements like this, "Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I'm not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened..." [which she said at the Reclaiming America for Christ conference just a day after she verbally attacked Edwards].

But then, that's probably not the point. As long as Republicans can wink-wink-nudge-nudge all her inflammatory statements away they won't have to deal with the reality that she is tapping into a very ugly undercurrent.

Vectors. Think vectors. Plot the direction this is heading. And don't think for a minute that that isn't Coulter's goal.

If you support Ann Coulter then you support violently repressing dissent.

* edited to change around the if-then in my final sentence.

RUE

Sunday, March 11, 2007 9:06 PM

Slick,

"No. She's an entertainer."

Then why did Richards (Kramer) get slammed for called someone a nigger? In fact he was working at a COMEDY club when he said that, not at a figgin' CPAC. Oh, and just so you know who some of the OTHER speakers were at the CPAC: Vice President Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator Sam Brownback, Represenative Tom Tancredo, and Newt Gingrich.

Yeah, it was a mere comedy act at a comedy club. Sheesh.

You are stupid, pointless and wrong, as usual. Oh, and a propagandist.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Sunday, March 11, 2007 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
Quote:
For Ann Coulter to suggest that John Edwards shares attributes commonly (if erroneously) attributed to homosexuals is slander, a lie, a fraud, and should not be accepted by anyone. For multiple posters to suggest that Ann Coulter bathes in virgins' blood, enjoys taking it up the a** while listening to liberal viewpoints, is a transvestite, has had a sex change, etc., is just good fun. Do I detect a slight case of double standard here?
I plead the Ann Coulter defense again... It's a JOKE, man! If Ann couldn't take it, I'm sure she wouldn't be dishing it out.

Ann can't take it. That is obvious from her response to any sort of criticism.

Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and the absolute antithesis of what an American should be.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

GEEZER

Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
It's going to be kind of hard for you to defend the Republican Party's official embrace of Ann Coulter, Geezer, if she continues to make statements like this, "Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I'm not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened..." [which she said at the Reclaiming America for Christ conference just a day after she verbally attacked Edwards]....If you support Ann Coulter then you support violently repressing dissent.

What gave you the idea that I was out to "defend the Republican Party's official embrace of Ann Coulter"? I wouldn't know Ann Coulter from Adam if it wasn't for the folks slamming her on this forum. From the little I've read since then I don't agree with very much of what she says, and don't much care for the way she says it.

Guys, she's in it to make a living, and will provide what her market wants. If Loyola University, CPAC or the Reclaiming America for Christ Conference book her, they know what they're going to get. I know I won't be asking her to speak at my next get-together.

It just seems a bit strange to me that folks who are so upset by her method of demeaning her targets would use those same methods to demean her. If you got a problem with her, act rational, don't act like what you hate.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

"No. She's an entertainer."

Then why did Richards (Kramer) get slammed for called someone a nigger? In fact he was working at a COMEDY club when he said that, not at a figgin' CPAC.

Because he didn't say it as part of his routine. He said it as an angry man, with intent to hurt. Sort of like you insult me farther down the post.

Quote:
Oh, and just so you know who some of the OTHER speakers were at the CPAC: Vice President Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator Sam Brownback, Represenative Tom Tancredo, and Newt Gingrich.

So? I don't agree with what Ms. Coulter said at CPAC, just sort of surprised at the exceptionally low tone of the response in this thread.

Quote:
Yeah, it was a mere comedy act at a comedy club. Sheesh.

An insulting joke by someone who makes a living being insulting. Sounds like an act to me.

Quote:
You are stupid, pointless and wrong, as usual. Oh, and a propagandist.

Ms. Coulter couldn't have said it better herself. Congratulations, you have become what you hate.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:09 PM

And yet, Geezer, it's more than that.

I agree that she fills a niche (see Barnum comment up-thread). She also represents conservatives. When she appears on MSNBC, or FoxNews, or CNN she's not billed as an entertainer. She's billed as a conservative commentator. Her column is carried by newspapers looking for a conservative voice.

So for all those principled conservatives out there, she's representing you and representing you often.

Do you think for one minute that CPAC would've asked her to speak two years in a row (at least) if they didn't think this is exactly what their audience wants? Judging from the reaction of the audience, this is what plays at eminent conservative gatherings.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE