Nice retreat. As I said she explained it as a joke and this in fact is not nearly as repugnant as it is portrayed. And I must have missed you on the Edwards thread where a lot worse was said about Ann C and others. Must be an oversight?

I guess you have to be at a conservative convention to get the humor of calling somebody a faggot. I mean, it's got all the elements but somehow it falls flat. Maybe Ted can explain why it's funny to call a distinquished senator, a married man, raised in poverty who made his own fortune through hard work and talent is a "faggot." It just isn't gelling for me as high humor.

Instead it kind of sounds like a biggoted insult by a person who has latency issues.

Maybe if you had heard what she said in context (or cared) you would know – try it. And if you really care about insults to “distinguished people then look at my post above and tell me what you think?

Yeah, like I said, if we had only been at a conservative convention, calling somebody a faggot might have been real funny. You just had to be there. It's the context that transmogrifies a blatant insult to a jovial moment.

But shouldn't she stop using the same "joke". She called Gore a fag a month before. Conservative humor! What it lacks in variety, it makes up in bigotry.

Hey – get over it. As I have posted there is some real crude hate speech on the left so please spare me the indignation over this schoolyard word. Anytime you want to match quotes (from the left and right) let me know. You have some real winners on your side pal.

Have a nice day

I read a piece that proposes an interesting idea. I think Democrats, instead of distancing themselves from Coulter should instead hold her up as representing the mainstream values of the Republican party. Let’s make Ann Coulter the public face of the Republican party! Highlight every horrific thing that spews from her poison lips as being representative of Republican values. Heck, the Republicans did it in the 90’s when they made “liberal” into the dirty word du jour. Why can't we?

I think it’s a brilliant idea, and would raise the level of discourse above that of “yeah, but your side said…”

My position exactly. She IS the face of conservatism, and her bizarre bigotted rhetoric is in fact what most conservatives believe in their heart of heart. Just look at her defenders on this board.



Crude hate speech is crude hate speech, not a joke. You're claiming that Coulter's crude hate speech is a joke.

That's what's so shameful about your defense of this representative of modern conservatism.



Maybe we do, maybe we don't (we don't but that's OK, let's indulge your fantasy). But we don't call them "jokes."

Crude hate speech is crude hate speech. Coulter engages in crude hate speech. And you're on the record defending it as a "joke."

I see a pattern forming.

And you don’t think this is being done right now.

http://www.right-thoughts.us/index.php/web...wards_a_faggot/


And it would work fine if not for the fact that the “left” esp. the far left says far more nasty stupid crap that can then be attached to Democrats. As in Howard Dean and “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for”. IMO the public is getting sick of the partisans, especially the nasty ones, on both sides. I think that the person elected will not get into this nasty rhetoric – and those who do will pay at the polls.



It was a joke. I heard her on FOX (I know you never watch) and saw the replay. Totally out of context.

Yes, Coulter's "joke" such as it was was to present Isaiah Washington as a victim because when he physically assaulted his co workers while shouting slurs he wound up facing some extremely mild consequences. In other words, her joke was that you should be able to beat your co workers and call them faggot, there's nothing wrong with that.
Ha. Ha.
I can't imagine why anyone would take offense to that.

Conservative humor! It's hilarious. And we need Ted to interpret it otherwise it appears for all the world to be nothing be bigotted insults.



Yep, keep saying that. And when she called Gore a fag a month before, that was a joke too. She needs to find a new punchline. I for one am glad the credibility of the cheap labor conservative movement in this country hangs on whether Coulter intends to be jovial while calling her political enemies "faggots." It tells us something about where conservatism is nowadays.

Here is a nice little pieces from the (usually liberal) Boston globe. Tell me how nice all the nasty idiots on the left are here. Please. And this was 2003! So please spare me the undeserved indignation.


Hate speech of the left
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 28, 2003

IN DECEMBER 1994 I wrote the first of what would become a yearly series of columns on the subject of liberal hate speech. That was the year Republicans swept the midterm elections to win control of Congress, and ideological passions were running high. I had noticed that when a prominent Republican or conservative said something offensive about liberals, it typically set off a storm of media condemnation, while an anti-conservative smear voiced by a liberal or a Democrat rarely drew any protest. There was no end of sour commentary, for example, when Newt Gingrich recommended that Clinton Democrats be portrayed as "the enemy of normal Americans." It was an outrageous remark, and Gingrich deserved the drubbing he received.

But when Jesse Jackson explicitly likened the proposals of the new majority to Nazism and apartheid -- "If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism" -- there wasn't even a ripple of disapproval. Julianne Malveaux, a radio host and USA Today columnist, caught no flak when she prayed aloud for the death of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease," she snarled on PBS.

But this isn't the first time the NPR diva has publicly wished death on a conservative. "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind," she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, "because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will."

"What you have now" -- this is left-wing activist and actress Janeane Garofalo, analyzing the Republican Party during an appearance at the 92d Street Y in New York this year -- "is people that are closet racists, misogynists, homophobes, and people who love . . . the politics of exclusion identifying as conservative." That was apparently enough to win her a guest-host slot on CNN's "Crossfire," where she offered this thoughtful critique of the Patriot Act: "It is in fact a conspiracy of the 43d Reich."

Ah, yes, the reductio ad Hitlerum. Why meet a conservative with facts or logic when you can simply tar him with the Nazi brush? Thus we had Nancy Giles on the "CBS Sunday Morning show" sourly tying Rush Limbaugh's "edgy" radio manner to you-know-who's. "Hitler would have killed in talk radio," Giles declared. "He was edgy, too." Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Daily News struck a similar note in commenting on "The Reagans," the canceled miniseries. "If Hitler had more friends," she told The Washington Post, "CBS wouldn't have aired [its Hitler miniseries] either."
Of course no one came in for more Hitler comparisons this year than George W. Bush. Third Reich references were practically a staple of antiwar rhetoric.
The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledges leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line."


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ch_of_the_left/

" Considering the reaction to Coulter's crude taunt, it isn't surprising that Maher's all-but-explicit assassination fantasy triggered an avalanche of criticism. Except that it didn't. There was no statement from Howard Dean, no denunciation from the presidential campaigns, no storm of protest from liberal bloggers repelled by Maher's remarks.
Like Coulter, Maher has a history of repugnant statements. After a riding accident left Christopher Reeve crippled for life, for example, Maher praised the horse: "If you try to make a horse jump over something that it doesn't want to jump over, I think it really should throw you off its back." In November, he said on CNN that "the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay," specifically naming GOP chairman Ken Mehlman. But while Coulter's latest puerile insult drew lavish media attention, Maher's far more offensive remarks barely caused a ripple.
A Nexis search Monday turned up 91 stories mentioning "Ann Coulter and John Edwards" in the previous 2 1/2 days. There were four that referred to "Bill Maher and Dick Cheney." Google News listed more than 900 web pages dealing with Coulter/Edwards, but only 15 concerning Maher/Cheney.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...ch_of_the_left/

Ted, I think that you are missing a couple of points here.
1 - First rule of holes is stop digging.
2 - It doesn't matter what Jeneene Garofalo or Jesse Jackson or Bob Shrum or Nancy Giles or Jullianne Malveaux or Nina Totenberg or Terry McCauliffe or Al Sharpton say. Doesn't matter. Ann Coulter's language is inexcusable. She uses words, words have meanings and meanings have consequences. If the idiots at CPAC were more interested in intellectual discourse than selling tickets to swooning frat boys, they would not have invited her. She's not serious; she's a flamethrower who puts butts in seats. Shame on them. Two years in a row, too, so you can't say 'fool me once...'

How you think that pointing out others' faults is a defense, I cannot fathom. This is a logical fallacy, not an argument. Didn't your mother ever tell you that 'two wrongs don't make a right?'

Speaking of "real crude hate speech" here's some from a "real winner on your side, pal." Mike Adams, a self-described "Conservative College Professor" says the problem is not that Ann Coulter went too far. She didn't go far enough.

Put simply, it is permissible for heterosexuals to use the term “faggot” because so many homosexuals use it all the time. The only rebuttal I’ve heard is that the same cannot be said with regard to the use of the “n-word.” This is an unspeakable insult to black people. Gay persecution does not rival black persecution in the annals (I could not find a better word to insert here) of American history. Any assertion to the contrary is simply too queer to take seriously.

Every time I get into a discussion about homosexuality I am accused of being “secretly gay.” When the accuser is strait, he shows how much he secretly hates homosexuals. When the accuser is gay, he shows how much he secretly hates himself. Ann should not mimic this hatred by apologizing for something Leftists do regularly and unapologetically.

But enough about what Ann ought not to do. Here’s what she should do immediately:

1. Start a website called “Global War on Fags” today.

2. Begin writing essays calling for the cleansing and purification of society via the mass murder of homosexuals.

3. Distribute videos on the website showing the actual murders of homosexuals.

4. Circulate instructions on how to bomb gay bath houses in San Francisco.

5. Circulate a “battle dispatch” to give people specific information on America’s most notorious bath houses.

How to Bomb a Gay Bath house

Hey, let's joke about murdering homosexuals and bombing bath houses. That's always good for a laugh. One of his readers replied, "Joking about things is funny. Also, incidentally, I hate faggots." Another misfit added, "Whenever a gay guy comes on to me, I ask him if he's into "fisting." Regardless of his answer, I put one on his nose just for good measure."

I'm guessing this is supposed to be limp attempt at "humor" as it comes not from the website of the "God Hates Fags" fanatics but from Townhall.com, a supposedly respectable website that features such known conservatives as Dennis Prager, Tony Blankley, Michael Barone and Bill Bennett.

And one idiot wandering too far from his village.

This deserves to be posted here:

Not once did the shadow of fear cross her face. Elizabeth Edwards stood before the nation, a graceful fighter steeled for personal tragedy again. The cancer is back and in her bones, a lung and possibly elsewhere. The news seemed worse than bad. Yet Edwards conveyed no hint of being hobbled by an incurable cancer. Self-pity was nowhere on the scene.

"Is this a hardship for us? Yes, it's yet another hurdle," she said. "But I've seen people who are in real desperate shape who don't, first of all, have the wonderful support that I have and have no place to turn."

John and Elizabeth Edwards stood together, a battle-tested couple once again meeting the public. Both lawyers, they have lived a life of prosperity and good fortune but also suffered devastating loss. Their firstborn, Wade, died at 16 in a 1996 car accident. In 2004, at the end of her husband's vice presidential campaign, she received a diagnosis of breast cancer. And now, in the midst of his campaign for the presidency, comes news of her cancer's recurrence. link

Elizabeth Edwards has more grace, class and dignity in one little finger than Ann Coulter has in her whole skanky body. Mrs. Edwards is fighting a battle she may not win, but the courage and grace by which she faces this new obstacle does her, her husband and her family proud.

Something a mean little witch like Coulter couldn't possibly begin to understand.

Ok lets use logic here. If we are not equally incensed by comment – far worse than any insult AC delivered with her little joke – then why are we talking about it at all? IMO what is happening here is an attack on AC from the left that is far out of proportion to what she said when compared to others I have posted here – thanks in large part to out biased media. This is clearly hypocrisy at it best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy


Yes to YOU it doesn’t matter what Jeneene Garofalo or Jesse Jackson or Bob Shrum or Nancy Giles or Jullianne Malveaux or Nina Totenberg or Terry McCauliffe or Al Sharpton say. But please explain to me why AC’s remark is so much more “newsworthy” and heinous than those of the others above?

It's much worse because Ann Coulter has become the "face" of the Republican Party! Ms. Coulter is continually a regular on FOX NEWS and other media, where every word she utters is thought to be by viewers a representation of the Republican Party political philosophy. Even though I am now an Independent, I have voted for Republicans the majority of my voting experience. Name calling on a school yard level is way beneath any political party, but especially in this case because Ms. Coulter has become the Republican Party "poster girl" . Actually, the RP would be wise if they could keep her totally off television altogether, but unfortunately I don't see that happening!

I tend to agree with you and feel AC is often over the top – but the Dems have people who have said worse about Bush and Chaney etc. and these folks are clearly left wing liberals that can be seen as part and parcel of the Democrat party. Then of course are the nasty comments made by the likes of Kennedy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022922/posts

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/14/182203.shtml

Seriously, Ted, what arent you getting? As this thread isnt about any "lefty" spokesperson, it sort of makes sense that no one really wants to discuss it. If you want to talk about hatespeech by liberals, why dont you start a thread about it? Then we can go on discussing Ann Coulter, since thats what this thread is actually about.

Wow, that sure sounds bad! But wait, it turns out that Kennedy was referring to their ideological views, not their physiology!



I agree with this analysis, by the way. Kennedy is a bit of a blowhard, and the comment is unfair - but it has nothing to do with race.

Those other comments you posted, I'm not going to defend them. Such base commentary has no room in civil discourse. Ann Coulter, I suppose in spite of the liberal media , seems to show up on all the cable news channels. She gets her books reviewed and she gets interviewed quite often. Like it or not, she is the media face of truculent right-wing politics. Unlike Kennedy, Jackson, and those others, she makes a living making vitriolic remarks about liberals. She doesn't just dash off an incensed comment she may later regret. She makes them over and over, and never shows a bit of contrition about them. She accused 9/11 widows of enjoying their husbands' deaths. She thought McVeigh should have bombed the New York Times building. She called John Edwards a faggot. She calls all liberals traitors. This is what she does. Janeane Garofalo is an actress who has made some vicious remarks on the side. Doing so isn't her career. That's what makes Coulter so uniquely culpable. This is what she does. And whether it's true or not, she continually claims that she stands by and believes everything she writes or says.

I am not defending her broad and often nasty comments. When she does this she often hides here strong analysis in many areas and we just think of her as a loose cannon.

Both sides have them and my point is she is not nearly alone. Hollywood in general comes to mind here.

Yes Kennedy is a blowhard and I have to live with this man in the same state!

Ted, I think you are obsessed with Ted Kennedy - actually his name is "Edward." Is that why you chose the screen name Ted?

You do not list a birthday, but my guess is that Kennedy was there first. That gives him "squatters rights." You have the option of moving.

I hate the fact that Bush is from Texas. I, however, was here before he was. At least they are going to build his library in Dallas, not Fort Worth - there may be a god after all.

Maybe they should have Ann Coulter speak at the ribbon cutting ceremony. Ah - Bush library, Coulter's verbal diarrhea - a good match.

No actually I just despise this stupid drunk liar –



I would still despise the dope – even if he lived in TX. You want him??? Take him!

Coulter may be a loud mouth at times but very often her facts are right on – the same cannot be said for Teddy boy who regularly talks one line and votes differently. He is the “friend of the little guy” who votes for the Unions and loves the illegal aliens who take their jobs.

PLEASE – take this buffoon to TX.

Update:

Ann Coulter and John Edwards were back in the news this week. During an appearance on Hardball, Coulter lambasted Edwards. Then Mrs. Edwards responded with a call-in. Given John Kerry’s disastrously slow response to the Swifties, I think inflammatory things wingnuts like Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc. say about Democrats should be shot down promptly and harshly.

Here is a brief summary.



http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1003605733

For those who wish to read the Hardball transcript of Coulter, I’ve provided thne link below.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460016/

The following night, Matthews noted something I had seen the night before.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19482788/

I watched Elizabeth Edwards exchange with Ann Coulter the other night on MSNBC and I have these thoughts about it.

It was a waste of time by Mrs. Edwards to try and appeal to the decency and humanity of Coulter. She has none. Ann makes big bucks by being The Bad Girl of The Far-Right and it would be career suicide for her to stop her relentless detestation of liberals.

Can you blame her? Coulter isn't a very astute observer of politics. She is such a rabid partisan and a faithful lapdog of the Right that she is hopelessly biased in her observations. Coulter is a one-trick pony, a media whore and obsessed with saying or doing whatever outrageous thing it takes to keep the spotlight on her despite being totally shallow and shrill. She is in competition with the likes of Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and other conservatives for the title of "Who Bashes Liberals The Best."

She is as I said before, the Paris Hilton of politics. Some people may think she's nice to look at () but when she opens her mouth nothing but idiocy spills out. Coulter makes the Right look mean, intolerant and uncivil, which is good for the Left and even better for her bank account. Paris says her dumbness is all an act. Maybe playing The Queen of Mean is how Ann separates herself from the pack? If so, she's one helluva actress.

But that's not to cover John and Elizabeth Edwards with glory either.

If Coulter is pimping them to sell books, they are pimping her to raise campaign contributions. It might be smart to use your enemies to get your supporters to open their wallets, but it's also a bit manipulative and cynical. Coulter suggested she might be the biggest fundraiser John Edwards has and that's not totally absurd.

My sympathies in this "fight" are obviously with John and Elizabeth Edwards and not Ann Coulter, but I don't think either side can claim to be on the side of the angels. Too much money is on the table for that not to be a big consideration.

This is a valid observation. The day after the encounter, I got an e-mail with Elizabeth Edwards name on it. I knew what she wanted and just deleted the e-mail. I don't want to contribute until the general election. I would rather spend money for Democrats to chew up Republicans than other Democrats.

Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

Based on what I have seen of it, I would say it was a bad joke that the opposition jumped on to discredit her.


Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

From what I've seen in the media, she looks like a "partisan bomb-thrower." I do not know much about her other than what I've seen on various news shows. I'm sure she is highly intelligent but, a little misguided. I would put her in a similar category as Rush Limbaugh. He's not a stupid man, but he seems to put party loyalty above common sense.

Well I don't know if he is a fag, but personaly I think he is an idiot and Id rather have a homosexual president than a idiotic one, although Bush is certainly far from being the light and genius of the republican party So not much to brag about there.

Ann Coulter is downright sexy, can we say sexy here? I dunno, anyway lets get specific, I like her she is highly opinionated and not afraid to say what she believes and thats commendable. I think conservatives get the shaft today with the press being as liberal as it is. Watch this video clip of her being interviewed about this on the Glenn Beck show carefully........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s3a1fxcHI0

Lets try and act adult here, because this enters the realm of political correctness, something I always frown upon. Does anyone here want to talk about overblown statements made to Republicans like George Bush???? This thing works both ways folks, if anything the bulk of outrageous statements is targeted at conservatives in general, do to a struggling presidency and an unpopular war, some of this is deserved, while things like people saying George Bush had a connection to the attacks of 9/11 is obsered, but something we have to hear on a regular basis. I think Ann's comments were taken out of context and I've heard much harsher things than that targeted at conservatives, like I said before. Geee WiZ why cant we all just get along??, lol. The truth is conservatives and liberals will probably never agree on all points or get along at all times, but it is important that everyones voice is heard and perhaps we even reach a middle ground at times!! The Border deabte is a good example of something that conservatives and liberals alike agree on today, hopefully we can reach that point on other issues but only time will tell

In an attempt to get this back on track, I’ll provide two examples of how Coulter throws bombs.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200608310001



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...?articleID=5236

Even in jest, wishing death on a U. S. Supreme Court Justice and a Senator from Rhode Island is outside the bounds of decency.



Who are you to lecture people on this board about acting like an adults? It is true that many of us (me included) have made some derogatory statements about Bush. No one, however, has made the kinds of statements about Bush that Coulter has made concerning Lincoln Chafee, John Paul Stevens, and John Edwards.

I have lived through the assassinations of two Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Jr., a number of other civil rights leaders, an Egyptian president and a prime minsiter of India. This kind of "joking" makes me want to toss my lunch.

If, in the heat of the immigration debate, she makes a statement even vaguely threatening to Bush, I hope they lock her skinny butt up in a nanosecond.

BTW: Your Beck link doesn't take into account her "joking" about death for two other public figures. She can't lay those on Bill Maher.

'BoF'




First off, I'm not trying to lecture anyone here, but you say no one has made the kinds of statements about Bush that Ann Coulter has made concerning Lincoln Chafee, John Paul Stevens, and John Edwards??? Wow really?? Are you sure about that, after all thats a bold statement BOF, one I could easily disprove. We are talking about George W Bush here, And you say nobody has made the kind of derogatory statements to him as Ann Coulter has made to people like John Edwards??? Have you ever watched John Steward for example?? Or that show Little Bush?? Where is the show called little Hillery, lol don't even answer that. Have you ever Heard the numerous hoaxes surrounding 9/11 ??? I mean look around, for goodness sakes BOF I am not trying to give you a hard time here in any way but come on, if you want to make a debate of that by all means let me know. This forum is of course not about George W Bush, but I could pull up news clips, forum post from various sites, news articals, ect ect etcetera etcetera, of people depicting George Bush in the most outrageous ways imaginable. Even respectable people, lol, for example ironically of John Edwards Using A bumper sticker analogy similar to that of Ann Coulters Bumper sticker analogy directed at Edwards. What Irony Right? Given the debate here, If this war is a bumper sticker for example, what exactly does that say about George Bush?? It says something like the following, George Bush used the war in Iraq as a ploy or fabrication of sorts, to achieve an alternate agenda. It says he would sacrifice the lives of thousands, to mislead the American people with a bumper sticker war, this would also consequently mean he is a liar, with no value for human life, truth, or justice, when the truth is he made some truly bad decisions but went into this thing on his beliefs as a man that we would be winning this war right now.

Thats just the tip of a very very tall iceberg of derogatory statements directed at George Bush as well as other conservatives, I don't want to derail this debate so I'll leave it at that, my prior post was only an attempt to state my opinion, as well as show that aggressive statements like Ann's are being thrown from all directions here, from both sides. In my opinion, and this you can disagree with as you likely will, liberals today get away with the same stuff with less heat, due to the current political situation in America where conservatives have had the power for years and in turn take the blame for just about everything. Some of the blame is even placed rightfully, while on the other hand much of it is politically driven by bias. Thats just my observation, but think what you will.

Um, I don't hear too much call for G-dubs assasination though. That is one place she certainly crosses the line. I hate GW with a white hot fury- but I have yet to have called for his assasination.

The statement was made within the context of this board. I don't think anyone here would advocate the things Coulter has about Chafee, Stevens and Edwards, would still be here, especially if they applied it to Bush.

If you can find where someone on the board has said such, then be my guest with the search engine.

Edited to fix minor problems after CR posted.

Yes, it is quite illegal to threaten the president BTW.

Right it is something that can get you into trouble with the CIA to make death threats on a president, from what I know various hate mail and threats are gathered by the white house regularly thought presidencies, what they take seriously has to be carefully determined to avoid jumping from state to state wasting time and resources on people who are not serious, I don't doubt that Bush has had his share of threats from civilians though, most president from what I know have, but thats another debate. But If anyone took ann's , pulled out of context debate, seriously then I don't know what to say for them, she is an outspoken conservative who throws political correctness out the window, good for her. She may be blunt and uncautious about how the things she says will be precieved by others, but to tell you the truth I'm the same way. If something I say is misinterpreted so be it.

Fact check! No, it would not be the CIA, but the Secret Srevice and the FBI.

The Secret Service also protects presidential candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/oba...tion/index.html

You know net2007, politics is nasty. I accept that, but I draw the line at threats and jokes about assassination.

BTW: Bill Maher was, in my opinion, out of line concerning his remark about Cheney. That, however, is no excuse for Coulter's remarks about Chafee, Stevens and Edwards.

Never mind within context of this board, I'm still waiting for some of Coulter's defenders who routinely say she's no worse than "the other side" (always a sign of deep thought in and of itself ) to point out any "liberal"* who routinely talks about murdering their political opponents, who routinely speaks favorably of terrorists like Tim McVeigh, who is granted the access that Coulter is granted. Bill Maher has never been an invited speaker at any Democratic party events "liberal" political action committes and the like, I don't see that ever happening for various reasons. I don't think some anonymous blog comment is exactly the same as someone like Coulter who is routinely invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Committee, who is routinely invited to represent conservative views in the press. We always hear about how this type of crap is coming from "both sides", and yet somehow miraculously we aren't inundated with murder fantasies involving Republicans spread across all the media. We don't see "liberals" spewing slurs and making fun of people's dead children and calling it political debate.

If it wasn't damaging our country I'd find it amusing that the same people who say people who are offended by Coulter's slurs need to grow a thicker skin are the very ones whining about how anything less than adoration of the current administration is unreasonable hatred, and how mean those liberals are when they disagree.

This supposed defense of Coulter is a complete freaking non-sequiter that nobody who isn't completely blinded by partisan hatred could ever buy. Because Bill Maher said something hateful and disgusting about Dick Cheney somehow that justifies her saying something hateful, disgusting and stupid about Edwards? DOES NOT COMPUTE. I guess this is the same thinking as invading Iraq because we were attacked by Al Queida.


*By which, of course, our deep thinkers mean "anyone who disagrees with anything the current administration has ever done, even if they are an outspoken libertarian like Bill Maher."

So far on this site I've heard some derogatory statements toward conservatives and vice versa, although so far the debates here are much more mature than many other places Ive been to, however how you can ask me to compare the derogatory statements made on this site alone from liberals to conservatives to that of conservatives throughout the nation like Ann Coulter who is obviously not a member of this site, making similar comments to liberals?? I don't quite get. Its like saying add up the number of harsh statements in my neighborhood and compare it to the number of equally harsh statements made throughout the country and see which adds up faster. Thats a bit uneven Id say, and while I could go through the trouble of showing that liberals here have at times said unnecessary or untrue things towards conservatives that rival that of what Ann said about Edwards, it would only start trouble and a derailed debate. Make a forum about the nature of derogatory statements made from both liberals and conservatives in America so we are not singling people out here , and I'll get specific on the topic, very specific. Otherwise, I guess we will leave it at that.



Oops, my bad , but thanks for the correction there.

Back to the subject:

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

In what way was what Ann Coulter said misinterpreted? Let's look at the word "faggot". Are there gays who don't view this as a derogatory remark? Are there straights who would want to be called a "faggot"? How would Coulter like to be referred to as a "lipstick lesbian"?

Did Ann Coulter mean that Edwards is too good-looking in a metrosexual way and not rugged-enough looking? And since when did a Presidential hopeful have to look "rugged"? We're not talking about lumberjacks or longshoremen here running for office.

My father once shook hands with Robert F. Kennedy at an airport when Kennedy was running for the Democratic presidential nomination. His comment was that Kennedy's hands were as soft as a woman's. I would assert that the hands of most politicians are soft due to the type of work they do.

I would not say it was "totally out-of-bounds" for Coulter to say what she said. She makes her living on making unsupportable, outrageous statements about people (including the women made widows by 9/11/2001) who are ideologically to her left. It still was in bad taste, but what isn't anymore when someone is seeking media attention?

Ann Coulter is by no means an intellectual or someone to be listened to outside of the realm of entertainment, unless you think there is substance to the "Nya nya nya nya-nya!" type of punditry she is known for.

Should Ann Coulter be judged in kind by those whom she mocks and criticizes she would be characterized as a lightweight thinker, a wealthy but still horsey-looking spinster who shamelessly plies her trade of slander, because her mother didn't teach her any better.


2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

Coulter is a serious political commentator only in the sense that she gets paid well for bad mouthing public figures. If she has any intellectual abilities aside from turning a nasty phrase it isn't evident to people like me.

Partisan bomb-thrower? Well, she is certainly on one side of the argument. She is a demagogue.

Coulter wears a cross around her neck. Coulter touts her own Christianity. Coulter writes a book about her Godless opponents.

You are hinting here at some recognition of the "Golden Rule." That seems to be far above Coulter's cognitive processes.

In order to be a "lipstick lesbian" she would have to be

A) Female
Atractive

I have not seen the DNA test on the first,(however- I have seen her "man hands" and adams apple ) and folks who like "betty davis eyes" would be the only ones to find her atractive

Still- not as mean a comment on her as she has made. I have not once asked someone to kill her through torture and whatnot. Therein lies the difference net.

If there are liberals of Coulter's political stature making the kinds of comments she makes, it should be easy to find them. I'm not asking you to count every anonymous rant against the administration, how about pointing out some of the presumably many examples of liberal or progressive pundits of her stature making the kind of statement that Coulter has based her career on.
*And no, dissagreeing with a policy is emphatically not the same as calling someone a faggot or wishing they were assassinated. It's kind of disturbing that needs to be pointed out to some people.

For that matter, it should be easy to find "liberals" defending Maher if he's such a spokesman for their cause. While I find a few progressive blogs praising occasional clips from Maher's show (misguidedly, IMHO), I've not seen anyone defending that particularly tasteless and hateful attack. I know plenty of progressives, and I'll include myself in their number, who have no use for Bill Maher because of his trafficking in misogynist stereotypes and his habit of using ad hominem attacks. There is a reason Maher and Coulter are friends, and he was the first to give her wider media exposure.

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?


Ann Coulter is not a serious political commentator, she's a bomb-thrower who stirs people up on both sides. Unfortunately it seems that lately she's more interested in creating controversy and getting invited onto crap television programs like Hardball than she is at actually making her point. This is just another example of that sort of thing.


The point she was trying to make is to me a legitimate point - John Edwards has spent his entire professional life advancing his own career and bank account by using personal tragedies, his own and others to his benefit. That's what he's done and he continues to do it to this day as evidenced by his latest mailing requesting donations to his campaign because Ann Coulter said a mean thing about him.

From this article.....



Classic John Edwards. "I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage" - Translation "Give me some money". That's how this guy operates and that was the point Coulter was trying to make. She just did it in a stupid fashion. REALLY stupid fashion. But oh well, it does give the "pure" left a chance to engage in more of their hateful rhetoric like we've see here. "Media whore", "lipstick lesbian"...... So, I guess she did perform a service of some sort, not to mention that she probably did cause John Edwards to be able to raise more money..... Like he needs it.



Aquilla

If you'll recall correctly, Aquilla, I said "How would Coulter like to be referred to as a "'lipstick lesbian'"?" I never called her one.

Yes, her sex life or orientation is nobody's business. But apparently the axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was not part of her Christian training.

But do carry on...

Agreed on the first point.



Disagree with the second point. For any of us on the "pure left" to measure up to the type of "hateful rhetoric" that is Ann Coulter's raison d'etre merely calling her a "lipstick lesbian" or a "media whore" ain't gonna get the job done.

To get down and dirty in the stinking sewer with Annie C., I'd have to advocate her being killed in a terrorist attack as she hoped John Edwards would be. Or that she should swallow rat poision as she suggested Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens should. Or maybe I could suggest she should be visited one night by a Muslim rapist from Al Qaeda since she called President Bill Clinton a rapist.

The funny thing about Ann Coulter is if she suggested ANY of these things (and worse) about another member of this board the banning would come so fast her skinny chicken neck would snap right off her anorexic body.

Not the most unpleasant thought I've had this week.

It isn't possible for ANYONE on this board to be as cruel, abusive, and evil as Ann Coulter. There's no money in it for us.

Except that she didn't hope that. Which is part of the point with Ms. Coulter. I agree that she's bombastic and often counterproductive (towelheads, faggot, etc.). BUT she is accused of things that she did not say. Like you said above. I've seen the clip, and she made a completely legitimate point, which was twisted out of context by the Edwards money-seeking machine. You can't possibly make an argument here that Ann Coulter "advocates John Edwards being killed in a terrorist attack." If you really believe that, post some evidence.

just to clarify for those you have lives, and thus don't watch MSNBC to see this idiocy.

And again, what she does is phrase her hateful spew so that those who choose to defend the indefensible can play semantic games to pretend she didn't say what she said. She's like a child constantly poking at another claiming when called on it that it isn't fair because he started it, and she didn't really poke him because her finger was millimeters away.
What she said about Edwards was a lame joke to just barely avoid calling him a faggot, and it was in fact using the word as an insult, which is offensive to gays (and should be offensive to anyone with a sense of basic decency). Her supposed satiric point, in fact was that it's just terrible that someone might face some consequences for such crude insults, while her defense this time is that somebody else said something. She's operating on the level of a schoolyard bully. Surely conservatism has better than this to offer.

You didn't include the link to the quote, but that doesn't matter. I don't give John Edwards any props (or money) for using Ann Coulter's sleazy attacks to raise cash for his campaign. But Coulter is HARDLY the injured party here. She started this mess. Spin it anyway you want, but if someone is stupid enough to say they hope someone is killed in a terrorist plot, they should be prepared to suck it up and take the heat if others don't find the humor in it and don't take it as a joke.

It's not sarcastic. It's not ironic. It darn sure isn't smart. It's stupid and it's deliberate and she deserves to be called on it. And she's loving every minute of it because like a moth to a light she feeds off publicity---and sells another thousand crappy books to another thousand suckers.

I don't know if Bill Maher was joking about Dick Cheney or not. But even if he wasn't why should I assume she's joking about wanting to see John Edwards killed? The burden of proof isn't on ME to prove she didn't mean it. SHE made the remark. Let HER prove she didn't mean it! Don't get it twisted.

There's nothing "legitimate" about going on a morning talk show and wishing for a presidential candidate to be killed in a terrorist assassination plot. Being a shrew like Ann Coulter means you don't get the benefit of the doubt. I'm only surprised she hasn't made a "joke" about Elizabeth Edwards' cancer coming back. Well, maybe she has, but she's saving it for the next book she barfs up.

Maybe I should suggest if anyone needs to be killed in terrorist assassination plot it's Ann Coulter.

Ha. Ha. Big joke. I'm kidding. I don't really mean it. Can't you see how sincere I am, carlitoswhey? Nobody wins by dragging down poltical discourse into sophmoric taunts and hate-filled rants. But just to prove that it's an ill wind that doesn't blow some good to someone, one of the very best things about being a liberal is NOT having an idiot like Ann Coulter as part of the team. It must get really old having to always have to explain away the explosively dumb things she says with sickening frequency. Glad she's on YOUR side.

carlitoswhey