Yes I have a problem with it – it is obviously wrong in portraying "all" liberals as anything. That said for liberals to say she never says anything accurate is wrong and she certainly is not the only one slinging the nasty comments – there are plenty of nasty “death wish” and worse left wing comments made, and by people a lot less bright or accurate as AC.




I was not implying the NAACP was the main source of nasty left speech. But there is plenty of it from Mather and numerous others that is every bit as aggressive as AC. Does that make her “right” – no but it makes people who try to portray her as unique in any way hypocrites.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001965.php

Ted, you've lost me here. Who is Mather?

Please link us to something he/she has said that's as virulent as Coulter.

Did you mean Jerry Mather[s], who used to play "Beaver"? Has he gotten political?

Yeah? By who? Cindy Sheehan? Rosie O' Donnell? Don't be vague, Ted. Get specific. I want some names and quotes of liberals who comment on politics that make plenty of nasty "death wish" and worse left-wing comments." Pardon me if I need something a bit more substantial than just your word that it's true.




No, no, no, BoF. Ted clearly wrote "Mather" not "Mathers." If he meant The Beaver he would have said so. Don't be a wise-apple, ya maroon!

Ted was talking about THIS guy! He and Ann C. have so much in common, don't you think?

My typo it was Bill Maher:
HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher compared first lady Laura Bush to "Hitler's dog" during his Friday night cablecast, after flashing a parody photo of Mrs. Bush with a black eye, as if she'd been a victim of domestic abuse.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/26/194236.shtml

http://newsbusters.org/node/7505

Remember what I said about recognizing diversions?

With the sheer number of idiots that manage to find a soapbox on this planet I think the point that we can find unacceptable comments on both sides of the aisle painfully obvious.

Why is it that when people take Coulter to task for calling Edwards a "faggot" we have to hear about what some other genius has done?

Come to terms, Coulter is pathetic.

Accept and move on.

Simply because being outraged by Coulter while ignoring what the others say is what is pathetic and hypocritical.

We have free speech and people from both sides of the spectrum use it .

Accept and move on.

Free speech is not license to say what you want without criticism.

Implying otherwise is something I find unacceptable.

When those ads about the dragging death in Texas ran during the 2000 election, I expressed my displeasure..

Who are we ignoring, Bill Maher? Who's he?

Rosie O'Donnell? Who cares?

I ignore them all the time no matter what they say.

Coulter actually has a political audience.

That is pathetic, absurd, and completely wrong.

People from both sides of the aisle say bad and stupid things. YES. But let's be clear on this. We are not going to move on. Ann Coulter is the darling of the right. She has a column at Townhall. She is constantly appearing on FOX News shows. She is quoted daily at Free Republic, and by countless fans. Republicans love her.

Maher is not her equal on the left. Most people on the left find him despicable, and idiotic. Maher is not a real liberal. He's a pseudo-libertarian entertainer, who is not welcome to shine most Democrats' shoes.

That is the first point.

The more important point is that you name any person on the left who says something like that, and I will call them out as what they are, and I will do my part to help marginalize them, and see that they don't have a job. I refuse to be represented by pigs, idiots and fools. That is not a hard stand to take. I will never tell you to get over it when a tool like Bill Maher opens his mouth. Don't get over it. Get him fired. He shouldn't be getting paid to wish the Vice President of the United States is dead, if that is indeed what he did wish.

This is childish, and doesn't belong in our political system. We need to have higher standards than this.

Maher is a sick, disgusting idiot.

Coulter is a sick, disgusting idiot.

Anyone who is paying them is a sick, disgusting idiot.

Anyone who is buying their books is a sick, disgusting idiot.

This is America we're talking about here.

That is simply because much of what she says many people agree with even though much of it is “over the top”. She does have a brain and not all she says is wrong or over the top.




The is America where even though You happen to hate the above we cannot, should not will NOT shut them up. That was Russia remember – or Cuba (and soon Venezuela), and China, and Vietnam, and …………

Free speech is free speech – you hate Coulter – fine. I hate Maher.


Get over it. I have

Free speech has nothing to do with this.

She called Edwards a "faggot."

How exactly is that acceptable?

nighttimer



What are you even talking about? Vote republican or the terrorist will kill you in your bed? Did I say that? You know why I love it when this kind of thing happens, as it always does? Because I can then expose it, I rarely fail to catch being misquoted because I remember most of everything I say. Therefore please don't put words in my mouth because it wont work with me. Should I summerise you to the same degree? After all you just put me in that position right? Should I say that because you have such an informative signature below every post reminding everybody about how many soldiers have died in this war, as if we don't know, that in turn perhaps somewhere deep inside you believe that if one votes republican more people will surely die?

There is after all a strong political message in that if you ask me, and perhaps you don't want anyone to forget the negative for your own reasons. Perhaps those reasons go beyond caring for the lives of Americans. Perhaps a projection of negativity helps sell your own political agenda, that agenda being spreading the negative as much as possible in the attempt to place blame on republicans, further discredit a president you don't like, and a war you don't agree with. Perhaps Perhaps

Now Normally I keep that kind of suspicion to myself because I obviously don't know you do I ? For this reason I always try my best to show anyone the same level of respect they have given me, I don't know if what I said of you in the last two paragraphs is true or not, I really don't, but if you want to play hard ball and through out accusations like you have then I can do the same.




Ohh yea, the pet goat story, he stays in the classroom for a few minutes after hearing of the second plane flying into the second building and this means he didn't care a bit, is that about right? Here is another situation where you are not in the position to say what someone you don't know thinks.



Well in retrospect look at the times we are in. Tough times, tough decisions and the ones in control will always receive the bulk of the criticism and to some extent they should. Do you know how often it is that a left wing celebrity, news castor, or even politician says something that offends me? Everyday almost, and its like I said if the democrats take control next year you will no doubt be in the same situation we are in, like this war for example, its like no matter what you do there will always be people yappin there mouths and going overboard.



I don't know how high we were riding or not, Bush barely won that election, and I mean barely. This country has been divided on this for quite sometime.



You know if there is one thing I like about a far left wing anti war enthusiast its that its not hard to figure out where they are coming from. I support this war, and I'm a republican, am I therefore a part of the dead enders you assume is a group growing smaller? You assume I, Bush, or Coulter enjoy war, because we support the war? You assume a lot don't you? Well you know what? I'm going to do you a favor, call us the irrational war mongers if it helps you find peace of mind knowing you always have a finger to point at the other side, by all means because I know for a fact that supporting the war doesn't mean you enjoy war, and everyday I look at others like myself who understand the sacrifices other Americans before us made to make this world a better place, and feel greatful for there sacrifice.

Where you see a president who stayed in a classroom for a few minutes while his country was under attack because he didn't care what was happening
with his county, I see a man who knew that his presence there for a few minutes meant little to nothing concerning how fast we were to respond to such an attack, while at the same time meant everything in the world to the kids in that classroom, But then again we all see what we want to don't we nighttimer? He is no Ronald Regan but it only takes me seeing him crying over the death of a soldier he doesn't even know to realize he does care. Unfortunately he has made some strategic mistakes, and he may not be a brilliant leader but he sure as hell doesn't enjoy the fact we are at war.

Is there a penalty on this board for arguing strawmen? Where do I advocate shutting anyone up? What I advocate is not paying them to spew this filth.

You misread me bad when you say I hate Coulter and you hate Maher. I reprinted my previous quote, and used red to highlight the part you got so horribly, horribly wrong. I hope you will see your error.

I think they're both idiots, but I do not hate either. I said neither has the political acumen nor sense to belong in the national debate. If they wish to entertain, fine feel free, but what I did say was that they are both sick; they are both disgusting; and they are both idiots. I further went on to say that, in my opinion, anyone who is paying them by actually buying their books is also sick, disgusting and an idiot.

I have no desire to shut anyone up. I also have no desire to encourage anyone to flap their gums with childish, irresponsible gobbledygook that has nothing based in reality associated with it.

Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Maher, and all the "pundit/entertainers" we are now being subjected to night and day need to be seen for what they are, and not to be topics of actual discussion. They are simply here to get paid to make noise that their audience likes. It's pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Personally, I could live without it.

Yeah, I'd agree the death of over 3,600 American soldiers is a "negative." But I don't need to update the toll of the dead and the wounded to "further discredit a president" I don't like. With a horrendous approval rating in the 20 percentage range, Bush is doing a bang-up job of discrediting himself without any help from me.

You can "perhaps" yourself to your heart's content, net2007. I feel no inclination to explain my reasons for listing the casualty count to you. Speculate all you like.

You do have me tagged correctly in one aspect: I do believe if you vote for Republican chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney who send off our troops to fight in idiotic wars for bogus reasons, all it does is make a lot of live people dead.



I would expect nothing less from anyone who finds a hopelessly shallow skank like Ann Coulter "sexy."



Well, yeah. It kind of seems that if I'm a "far left-wing, anti-war enthusiast" conversely that must make you a "far right-wing, pro-war enthusiast." And like many far right-wing, pro-war enthusiasts like Bush, Cheney and Coulter, you're a lot more enthusiastic about the war in Iraq as long as somebody else is doing the fighting while you're safe at home doing the supporting. Smart move there.



Bush squirting a few crocodile tears doesn't take the place of him actually attending a funeral for a fallen soldier (something
his predecessors in office did) and it definitely doesn't invalidate the fact that he was the guy who sent that fallen soldier to his death. An American soldier dies and Bush cries for a minute. That soldier's family will be crying forever.

I agree with you that Dubya is no Ronald Reagan. He's got a lot more in common with Ronald McDonald.

Or am I being mean like Ann Coulter?

No matter how many times you drop it, 'chickenhawk' is not an argument. It is, indeed, the very definition of an absence of argument, a rather pathetic ad hominem. Is it just that you don't want us to take your arguments seriously, or maybe that you find this phrase simply irresistable? In any case, sorry to interject.

If you don't like "chickenhawk" carlitoswhey, how would you describe someone like Cheney, who supports the war, but got multiple deferments. Fill in the blank here____________, or let's take use a hypothetical case concerning Iraq. We have a young man who is gung ho for others fighting the war, but has not joined the military because:

a. He wanted to develop video games.
b. When that didn't work, he thought he was too old - when in fact - he wasn't.
c. And when that didn't work, he thinks he may have a medical condition that prevents his enlistment.

Keep in mind this is purely hypothetical.

Personally, I like the 19th century word "poltroon," which is considered obsolete or poetic.

Sorry to interject or sorry that when it comes to cutting politicians off at the ankles, Ann Coulter isn't the only one who can play that game. However, I have to defer to her far superior talent at creating "pathetic ad hominems" and complete absence of authority (as well as the common sense of a bag of hammers).

"Chickenhawk" isn't an argument. It's a fact. Additionally, it is not that I find the term simply irresistible. I find it unerringly accurate.

I don't concern myself with who does or does not choose to take me seriously or not, carlitoswhey. Depending upon what I think of the person leveling the critique, their disdain may be more important than their approval. I state my case and after that I follow the advice of humorist Ashleigh Brilliant who said, My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

I have a daughter in the TV and Film industry and that quote rivals one I saw on a billboard there in Hollywood last year. It featured a group of Kevin Clown (sp?) trendy, pouting, frowning models of both sexes walking abreast with the caption below reading, "Our models can whip your models." I hate to cut her arrogant sophistry any slack but she is perhaps simply an entertainer disguised as a 'Talking Head', albeit filled with a huge helping of nastiness.




The question for debate is:

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

Coulter does what she does to support her idea of what the political landscape should resemble - the world according to the Faux Noise Channel. Of course her comments were out of bounds unlike the comments by Bill Maher who makes his living in COMEDY and not in writing books that support the fiscal liberals who she wants to see retain power in the executive branch of our four branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial, President of the Senate). The only thing that is further 'out-of-bounds' in regard to Ann is her Adam's Apple which makes me think I need more testosterone or 0% body fat to make me a more 'manly man' by having mine protrude that far.

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

It really disturbs me to think that I am going to have to give Colter the same 'poetic license' as I give Maher. My reasoning is that she is more like an after-dinner speaker and writer of "How To" books on girding King Arthur and the rest of his Crusaders for the unavoidable battle with Global Terror (which is now confined to Iraq by a brilliant military 'surge' that should soon surround most of the world's known terrorists - only the trainees are getting out and bungling bombings in the British Isles - before they can leave to wreak havoc here in the U.S. Dubya is a genius for coming up with the 'whip them there' strategy that has been so successful.)

Nighttimer


I came up with the perhaps perhaps on you when you took it upon yourself to summarize me as grouping liberals together as a group that if voted for would lead to terrorist killing us in our sleep, when I never even said anything close to that. However I'll admit it doesn't take long talking to me to figure out how far my opinions stray from most liberals, particularly when concerning this war. Now that being said I can actually have a decent conversation with many liberals whether I agree with them or not, but like I said, I pretty much show an equal amount of respect to those I talk to, and what you did in your last post to me was assume ridiculous conclusions concerning what I think of liberals, or how those who support the war think, when you wouldn't know either way. So sorry, but I guess I had to do some assuming of my own after that move.






You don't know my reasons for not going to war, but I'm going to tell you right now that support is greatly appreciated by our troops, and I know this from personal experience. Also you don't have to be in uniform to honor those who fight for this country, thats an immature thing for you to suggest, with all due respect. Well at this point not much respect.




Yea I think perhaps thats exactly what that means, and now the Irony here becomes clear as crystal. You can be mean and cynical all you want, this is America, but what I frown upon is a hypocrite. If you want to play the same game someone like Ann does by using suggestive comments in a post you designed to strike against her while using similar if not worse tactics while doing so, then I don't know what to say for you.

You label conservatives, you seem unsatisfied for example at presuming someone like Bush is a weak leader and leaving it at that, you want to project him as a heartless monster that has more in common with an evil twin of Ronald Mcdonald than a president. For instance when I said hey remember that pic of the president morning the death of a fallen soldier? You respond just as I expected you to, with but but but but he doesn't go to the funerals of fallen soldiers.
I doubt if thats even true anyway, but I expected a line from you that would say in a nutshell well that picture doesn't mean anything, because because, and aparently thats exactly what I got , so what is clear here to me from a number of things you have said, is you have made a habit of projecting the right in a derogatory way, and if your going to do that and criticize right wing Ann Coulter for doing the same freakin thing your doing, then for goodness sakes what does that say? Answer me that, what dose that say?

You're correct that I don't know your reasons for not going to war. The easy assumption is you probably don't want to get shot. Oh, and I never said that you have to be in uniform to honor those that are. It just seems those that are cheering the loudest are the ones that have never worn any uniform since they got out of the Boy Scouts. Odd thing that.



What it says is I tell the truth about right-wing nuts like Ann Coulter and give them hell. Which part should I stop? Telling the truth or giving them hell? If you can't swim on the deep end of the pool then you'd better dogpaddle in the kiddie wading area.

I don't have to "presume" Bush is a weak leader. All I have to do is look at the record and apply a little critical thinking instead of taking the predictable knee-jerk conservative, reactionary stances as you do, net2007. Regarding Dubya not attending the funerals of fallen soldiers? Doubt all you like. It happens to be a fact.

President Bush has met hundreds of families of fallen soldiers, but he has yet to attend a servicemember’s funeral, he said Tuesday.

“Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?” he said. http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section...mp;archive=true

On Monday and Tuesday, amid the suicide bombing carnage that left at least 34 Iraqis dead, three more U.S. servicemen were killed in combat in Iraq. In the coming days their bodies will be boxed up and sent home for burial. While en route, the coffins will be deliberately shielded from view, lest the media capture on film the dark image of this ultimate sacrifice. It is almost certain, as well, that like all of the hundreds of U.S. troops killed in this war to date, these dead soldiers will be interred or memorialized without the solemn presence of the President of the United States.

Increasingly, this proclivity on the part of President Bush to avoid the normal duty of a commander-in-chief to honor dead soldiers is causing rising irritation among some veterans and their families who have noticed what appears to be a historically anomalous slight.

"This country has a lot of history where commanders visit wounded soldiers and commanders talked to families of deceased soldiers and commanders attend funerals. It's just one of these understood traditions," says Seth Pollack, an 8-year veteran who served in the First Armored Division in both the first Gulf War and the Bosnia operation. "At the company level, the division level ... the general tradition is to honor the soldier, and the way you honor these soldiers is to have high-ranking officials attend the funeral. For the President not to have attended any is simply disrespectful."

http://www.alternet.org/story/17079/

More than 2,290 US troops have been killed in Iraq. President George Bush has attended none of the funerals - for which he is often criticised by the families of those who have died.

Nadia McCaffrey's son Patrick, 34, a member of the Californian National Guard, was killed during an ambush in Iraq in June 2004. She said she had not expected Mr Bush to attend her son's funeral in person but thought the government would send someone.

"It's not just me. Many, many people say the same thing," she said, speaking from her home near San Francisco. "He was my only child, but it was not only that. Patrick did not want anything from the military. He joined up out of patriotism. I would have thought that... somebody could have come. Nobody showed up."

The White House said that as Mr Bush could not attend every funeral, it would be wrong to pick just one. He has met the families of killed soldiers. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle348415.ece

Nobody has ever suggested the President should attend over 3,000 funerals. But he can't attend even one because he doesn't want to appear to be playing favorites? Apparently, other presidents have found a way to honor fallen soldiers. Not only isn't George W. Bush not another Ronald Reagan. He's not even another Jimmy Carter.

Ball's in your court, net2007. Try to work a few facts in with your opinion. Even Ann Coulter tries that trick every so often.

nighttimer



lol, no thats not why, although getting shot is not my idea of fun, but war is about sacrifice and everyone who signs on, especially in a time of war more than understands the risk involved, this is why I also argue with those who say our men overseas who volunteered there services are in a situation that they didn't intend on being in, thats ridiculous. As for me, I was in R.O.T.C. in school but I probably couldn't get into this war like my cousin did due to my medical status.
I figured this anyway, but Ive already been told by a few people it wouldn't work, id be refused. Otherwise I would probably go and I know thats easy to say, but I mean it, if I did go Id prefer to make it out alive like most others, but to me there is no better way to die than to go out sacrificing yourself for a greater cause, but I don't exactly expect you to understand that.





The truth? Or your opinion? Big difference afteral wouldn't you say?

The answer to the question "what does that say?", is one word, hypocrite. Thats what that says, and I, like anyone else, I can swim on the deep end as you put it, like I said in my last post, I have no problem with bluntness, or the art of being cynical, thats my style in fact but I use it with a degree of respect. But here you are accusing someone of being a cynical right wing nut, while your just as cynical. Your also judgmental, no offense but you act as if you have right wing war supporters figured out but you couldn't be more clueless in your assertions.






Ok so he says he didn't want to be unfair so why read anything more into that? He is not a bad person, he may be a weak president but like I said similar to Ann I believe the worse you can project yet another right wing nut like Bush the better you feel, I think it gives you a lift I really do. I'll see him as he is, a poor president. Ive heard the most ridiculous elaborations from people like you that it really has me considering some people get a lift out of demonising those in the opposing political party.

But in case your wondering why I'm defending bush and you happened to mention Jimmy Carter, let me tell you a true story. I'm watching TV and Jimmy Carter is on some news show that is taking in calls and a women gets on the phone with the ugliest attitude. I'm probably guessing a conservative but I don't remember her saying either way. The look on his face was just sad, Anyway I thought to myself what a heartless witch, this man is retired and must be 80 years old for goodness sake let bygons be bygons, and similar to this case its not that I think he was a good president that even deserved my sympathy, its that I knew somewhere inside myself that she was no doubt, not a democrat and the anger in her came from likely being on the opposite end of the political fence, and if he had been a Republican she probably wouldn't have even called.

Now thats just my suspicion in that case, but I know your affiliation, as well as your habit for jumping to conclusions about right wingers just from what I've heard you say in the last few days. Ive seen politics play into bias and favoritism all to often, I even have my share of bias, but I try to be open about it. We all look at the other side from time to time and wonder if the other side shares some of the values any given person holds close to them.

By the way you said try and work some fact in with my opinion, did I hear that right, ok, first tell us that what you have stated here about the right wing nut Ann Coulter, as you put it, is fact and not just your opinion and explain to everyone why your opinion is fact where as anyone else's opinion is only opinion.
My opinion is just that, an opinion. My opinion is that she says some things out of line now and then no doubt but when or how often what she says is taken out of context by people like yourself is anybodies guess. It only took me studding part of what you quoted in its original context to find one thing she said being pulled out of context, like a couple people here, like myself have already pointed out, and you know what I'm not an Ann Coulter guru, I see her on tv now and then, but the very first critisism of her that I take the time to look into online turns out to be only her quoting somebody else, then being critisised for using it in a direct way.

In any case I don't doubt she has said things that was over the top in the past, this would explain half of left wing America no longer caring what the context of what she says is in. As long as the headline, short news clip, or post by all the nightimers on the web seems offensive, why actually take the time to watch or read what she did say in its original context, right? Must be offensive if this guy or that guy says so.

Aren't you supposed to be the guy who keeps saying poor ol' Annie is being purposedly misquoted by the mean ol' liberals? Why are you now doing the same thing? Where and when exactly did I say or imply my opinion is a fact and anyone else is only offering their opinion?

Scroll up to the top of the page. See the first post in the thread? Find the links in that post and click on them. The links should take you to source material that was selected to establish that Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot." Start on Page One of this thread and you will find numerous links to articles, reference materials, quotes and other source material utilized by both critics and defenders of Coulter.

You are the primary poster in this thread who persists in offering up only their opinion, net2007. Either that is because you mistakenly believe that's all you need or you just don't know that merely offering your opinion convinces NO ONE.

If you read The Survival Guide of you may recall this: The use of unsupported blanket statements does not add credibility to your position. http://www.americasdebate.com/?page=guide

Additionally, you don't need to tell me you're only expressing an opinion. That's obvious. EVERYONE on the board is only expressing an opinion. What allows that opinion to be taken seriously is what else you bring to the table to go with the opinion. Which has nothing to do with each individual's political beliefs. Referencing The Survival Guide once again:

Cite your sources, and be prepared to back-up your argument. Don't make us ask for your sources after making a bold statement. Providing sources early and often solidifies your argument, and solid arguments help establish credibility.

Civility and respect to individuals is a given on this board, net2007 or there are consequences to be expected. However, I don't have to respect your opinion if all it is, "Well, this is what I think, so there." I'm certainly not going to judge it as anything but lightweight without any supporting sources it to give it weight.



Why is the same people who defend Ann Coulter have to add the caveat, "Well, I'm not defending Ann Coulter, BUT...?" A few days ago Turnea asked a simple question and either none of the Coulter crew read it or wants to try answering it.



Some things aren't subject to being misquoted or spun a certain way to make someone look bad or can be played off with a weak laugh and, "Oh, she didn't really mean THAT." You can do all the "studding" (sic) you like, but you can not and have not provided anything remotely resembling proof that Ann Coulter has been deliberately misquoted by myself or anyone else in this thread. All you have offered is your opinion and without supporting evidence you are free to offer up your opinion, but I am equally free to consider it nothing but your opinion.

Apparently Link 2 has been removed from You Tube because it supposedly violated the website's terms of use. Dare we hypothesize that it was the 'damage control' department at Ann Coulter, LLP that precipitated that move? Weep not my friends - someone else has recovered that slippery pigskin and has posted the video footage of her actual comments again on "You Tube".

Link 3

A small sematics point is that Coulter never actually calls Edwards a fag but yet intimates that IF she were to call him a fag, she would have to go to rehab and also that she feared the comment would be seen as demeaning by gays. She was inferring that grouping Edwards with them would actually be worse than their just being gay (as if there is something already wrong with being gay and that this putting them on a 'par' with Edwards would somehow add to their misery of being gay.) Just where does she stop the slamming? Coulter got laughs, claps and cheers from the organization to which she was speaking. The laughter and 'attaboys' for Ann also made me realize once more that mob mentality and unconditional support for even this abhorrent behavior is particularly alive and well and being propogated by the minions spouting the 'company line' in Rupert's theme park called RADIO RIGHTYLAND.

Nighttimer you are NOT a "Great American" (the secret handshake and greeting kind invented by Sean Insannity) and I hope you stay that way! Those Hannitized Great Americans seem to be the ones who laugh, clap and cheer for the ugliness of a Coulter, Lush Rimbaugh, Glen Beck, Jerry Doyle, Neal Boortz, Rusty Humphries, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Mark Davis, Joe Scarborough Mark Levin and so on, ad nauseum. If you have to tell everyone you're a Great American to get them to return the greeting, then you are probably NOT a "Great American".

To quote a PGA Tour commercial featuring Chad Campbell, he says something to the effect that if you have to tell everybody how good you are at golf, you probably aren't that good.

Thank you, Mr, Campbell, for that piece of West Texas wisdom. It sure sounds like what my parents taught me, too. Hannity and Coulter should be required to spend some time with some modest American heroes.

nighttimer



Oh yea, ok this is you...........

What it says is I tell the truth about right-wing nuts like Ann Coulter and give them hell. Which part should I stop? Telling the truth or giving them hell? If you can't swim on the deep end of the pool then you'd better dogpaddle in the kiddie wading area.

So you tell the truth, about Ann Coulter, I suppose in turn people like myself lie, which consequently means your opinion on her is more than opinion, its the truth as you put it, and I still fancy my opinion on her as an opinion only, so there you have it. Mind you my opinion of her is not poor little Ann, although she was misquoted like I'll keep reminding you.



I looked at the links one was a short cover of the story the other was a link to a video that was removed.



Uhh No no no, don't think so, your a little mistaken here. I presented a video of her saying this in its original form then went over the actual quote posted by another member. So what I did was show her original comment in video form and present my opinion accordingly. Apparently what you did was present a video I never got to see and her quote mentioned from NewsTrack news, and instead of presenting your opinion, presented what aparently is the truth, how convenient for you. So now what I ask is that you pay special notice to the following part of your last post to me as follows................





Oh ok now you actually get it about the opinion part, hope that includes you to there bud. Or wasn't what you said the truth? Sigh I don't remember. What you brought to the table was less than impressive anyway. You might want to think about finding whatever that video was on another site because a 4 paragraph news artical does not exactly make your case. You did show a short quote but why that is better than the original video and what she said in its entirety I'm not so sure, perhaps because your telling the truth?








I never said it was but I never read or heard where that originated from only her saying.....


"It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'"

and

"I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards," she said. "That would be mean."

Neither of those are calling him a fag directly, she was being suggestive sure, but the part about Edwards getting killed in a terrorist attack was pulled out of context completly, so how do I know that this in its original form was not pulled out of context? Unless that is the first time she used fag and John Edwards in the same sentence. If she was perhaps being over the top sarcastic about a candidate she doesn't like, but she didn't call him a fag

and lets remember Nighttimer The Survival Guide of you may recall this: The use of unsupported blanket statements does not add credibility to your position. Aww I know sarcasm bites but I'm guessing if Ann Coulter was a liberal we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway. She says some immature things yes, but what else do you want me to conclude, she is a right wing nut like what you think. I don't even think Rosie O' Donald is a left wing nut, she may be immature even more than Coulter but she can have her far stretched opinions, thats her right. I don't have to watch Rosie, just like you don't have to watch Ann. Lol, I'll tell you what you had just better vote republican I suppose otherwise next year you will be making post like this everyday going after people with unfavorable opinions of how the left handles things. Remember what I said before? We get our share of bull crap statements trust me, if not more.

It was part of a joke and if you had listened you would know.

But tell me turnea - how is the crap below "acceptable" form an elected official?

Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler's Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289485,00.html

Sounds like a "yes, but..." response to me, Ted, and while many of us Democrats deplore the incompetence and grievous errors of the current president, we aren't lining up to defend what one Keith Ellison said.

The subject of this thread is what Ann Coulter said. It is not meant to encompass all the slanderous statements of everyone else, particularly Democrats.

Ann Coulter has the right to say obnoxious and outrageous things over the public airwaves in much the same way that pornographic materials can be sold at newsstands. In neither case does it enhance the reputation of the means by which the free speech is disseminated.

Coulter could make her living in a more respectable manner sans the sensationalism and outrage, but it is evident that she enjoys the notoriety too much to do so. The legality of her practices does not lend respectability to what she is doing.

Oh I heard the joke and the context only makes it worse.

One last time, after this I'm assuming willful ignorance.

Look in the opening post.


This is not hard logic to follow. Unable to discuss Edwards because she would then be "forced" to use the term "faggot."

I looked, I'll even requote it




The two relevant quotes being........

"It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of at an impasse -- I can't really talk about Edwards," she said.

"I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards," she said. "That would be mean."


both I saw in their original context, in video form, however concerning the John Edwards/fag portion of the comment I'm unsure if this was her bringing up this because she said at another time in a more direct way "he is a fag" and got attacked for it leading her to say "'"It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot, so I can't really talk about Edwards'"" or if this is what everybody is referring to when they say she called him a fag. She didn't call him a fag, in either of those quotes but like I said its certainly suggestive of that but she didn't go so far as to flat out say "John Edwards is a Faggot" at least not here, but if she did at some other time I'm all ears, lets hear it, otherwise this is similar to everyone saying she wishes he had been killed in a terrorist plot when she never really said that either. I can gather she says immature things yes, but I also gather that she is taken far to seriously and the things she says are often pulled out of context and represented to sound worse than they really are. And that this is usually done by those who are on the left politically, big surprise there though.

So you are claiming a substantive difference between Coulter claiming to be unable to discuss John Edwards without the use of the word faggot...

and

...calling Edwards a faggot?

If he were not a faggot in her eyes, why would she so desperately need the term to discuss him?

turnea



Precisely, because there is a difference. Let me tell you a story, when I was in 3rd grade we all sat together in a semicircle to play a game. The game was the teacher whispered a phrase into the ear of the student at one end and each kid would then whisper the same message to the person next to them until the last person in the semicircle got the message. Now the objective of the game was to see how much the phrase would change having been heard and retold almost 30 times. The starting phrase was "the new kids new blue shoes, was this schools cool new news" Now it was meant to be something that could easily be mistold and from what I remember it ended up being the following "These new blue shoes, was cool new news" I remember this like it was yesterday.

It was just an early lesson of how each person will represent anything they hear with some degree of change, the relevance and moral of this story is that all too often in politics that change often favors the person doing the quoting. You see this in forums all the time but It's important I think when quoting, not to change the substance of the quote, because then what happens is someone else who hasn't for example taken the time to hear what was said in its original form understands what was said though the eyes of someone else. In turn that person could misinterpret that substance to some extent.




Probably because she doesn't like John Edwards or agree with him politically. What she said was over the top to some extent but the way it is retold by many particularly on the left almost always sounds worse, this forum being a shining example of that.

I'm sure we are all familiar with the telephone game however it is so divorced from the reality of this debate that its being posted here bodes very poorly for the chance of rational dialog.


That's tech-speak for "this was an entirely irrelevant point"

We have her exact words. What is at issue is not transcription but interpretation. That is not subject to the "telephone effect".


...and how does that lead logically to being unable to describe him without using the term faggot?

I know you have the quote yet you say.........




and others say she wish he had been killed in a terrorist plot and so on and so fourth, all this makes my point very relevant if you ask me

I noticed you didn't answer my last question in the post you quoted.

Care to give it a shot?

And so it’s not relevant that lots of folks on the left including Dem politicians say lots of slanderous crap about Bush and other conservatives? Come on please give me a break.

I have an idea.

No, Ted, it is absolutely not relevant. And in Logic (the philosophy of), what you are doing is called a Diversion. It is a logical fallacy in debating. Perhaps someone should spell it out to you. According to the book The Art of Reasoning, "The fallacy of diversion consists in changing the issue in the middle of an argument" (p. 152). This is exactly what you are doing. Either address what you think of Ann Coulter's statements, or stop posting in the thread. If you're upset about Democrats' remarks, go start a thread about it. Something tells me that some people may be slightly more courteous than you're being, and actually stay on topic.

Either address what you think of Ann Coulter's statements, or stop posting in the thread. If you're upset about Democrats' remarks, go start a thread about it. Something tells me that some people may be slightly more courteous than you're being, and actually stay on topic.


I disagree because when we discuss Coulter we are talking of political speech and she is NOT the only one making statements. And for the record I take Coulter's statement about what she said as the truth. Spin it any way you like.

And I have started another thread.

Lets see where it goes shall we.

turnea



At your request I'll answer this part. The answer is that wasn't logic it was stupid, I don't think he is gay for one. However what would have been stupider is if she stood up there and said word for word ""John Edwards is a fagot"" which she did not, thats even more offensive so how convenient for countless people who don't like Ann Coulter to simply exaggerate her comments. It sounds better to just say she flat out called him a fag just like that, or say she wishes he would die in a terrorist plot so thats what many do.

And here we go again with yet another in a series of posts defending Ann Coulter by someone who finds her "sexy" but is quick to proclaim they're not a Ann Coulter defender. Sure, you're entitled to interpret her remarks as being "misquoted." That's your call and you're welcome to it. I believe she said exactly and precisely what she meant to say and meant every word of it.

Fancy your own opinion all you like net2007. That's all it is.



No surprise that the YouTube video has been removed. It is over five months old.



Nice try there "bud," but no sale. I'm not about to spend a moment finding another video of the skank. Just because you got to this thread five months late in the debate, you really think I'm going to go back and find another video link to Coulter's remarks just to impress you? Don't stay up late waiting for THAT to happen.



"If Ann Coulter was a liberal we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway." She's not. So we are.

Comparing Ann Coulter to Rosie O' Donnell again? You do so love that irrelevant and tiresome comparison. If conservatives get their share of "bull crap statements" maybe its because they make more than their share of "bull crap statements."

Alright, I've got a game I'd like to discuss... it's called Clue.

I have exaggeratedly precisely nothing.

There is no substantive (check the dictionary) difference between saying she was unable to discuss Edwards without using the word faggot.

and calling Edwards a faggot.

The difference is purely grammatical.

..and I'll even include the much asked-for video link both because it helps my case and because I've got a YouTube account that makes such things ridiculously easy.

Coulter not not calling Edwards a faggot

That clip I've seen, it was included in the video I posted here days ago. She was being highly suggestive thats obvious, but there is a clear notable difference between someone saying what she did as part of a joke, or someone saying "John Edwards is a Fagot" because thats what they believe. She just doesn't like John Edwards, and while she could probably be a bit more mature the truth is in the details, she doesn't believe he is gay because she latter says she would never insult gays by comparing them to Edwards.

She just doesn't agree with his politics, the other quote of her talking about someone else saying Edwards should be killed in a terrorist plot was even more pulled out of context than this, she may be immature but ya know whatever because Ive seen the same thing from the left, and you know what? I deal with it because this is America people can say whatever they want on either side. If your offended speak your voice but at least keep the context accurate, she didn't say "John Edwards is a Fag" there is a difference between someone playing the role of a comedian speaking to hundreds of conservatives and going overboard by joking about a candidate they don't like and someone out the blue with no proof simply saying John Edwards is a Fag because its what they believe.

I've noticed in this and some other posts that you perseverate on the lack of "maturity" in others.

Considering that you are but 24-years-old, and find a discussion of Nancy Pelosi's vagina funny, doesn't strike me as the pennacle of maturity.



Perhaps you need to take a long hard look in the next available mirror.

nighttimer



Ahh yes and I too believe she said exactly and precisely what she meant to say and meant every word of it. Only thing is I have a box full of Q-Tips and cleaned the wax out of my ears before I tuned it.



Funny thats just the point Ive been trying to make, you speak the truth though remember? Your words not mine, so I'm guessing you fancy your opinion above that of others, and you can argue I'm an Ann Coulter defender all you wish, but I've been saying since the start of my post in this forum that I'm not an Ann Coulter guru so therefore don't have a strong opinion on her, she seems alright I think she is funny sometimes, and over the top sometimes. I do agree with her politically my only point here is that political Bias drives people to exploit others. While she may exploit John Edwards, you exploit her for exploiting John Edwards, lol I mean its funny and a bit hypocritical but whatever helps you sleep better man.




You see this is my point, look at what you say............ skank? Aww come on now wouldn't that be derogatory language? In fact lets look at its definition shall we........

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skank



Is that not as suggestive and insulting as the word Fag? Your going to try and pass this woman off as offensive, by being offensive yourself? Thats not exactly what I call convincing, only hypocritical as I've said. Personally I could care less if people use offensive language, If I'm called a fag or a cracker you know what who cares? Seriously who cares, I'm 25 years old and I know who I am and what I am, and thats all thats important to me. I'm not going to waste my breath by matching there immaturity, Its not worth my time.




Ok, thank you for that, thanks for admitting what I already suspected anyway. This is politically driven I see this everyday from both the left and right. Now its just this kind of thing that divides us. You what though I gotta give you credit for admitting that, many people have a hard time admitting things such as there own political bias. I have my share of it myself and never had a problem admitting it but I do think we have to strive to find common ground instead of going off on each other for our differences.



And vice versa, it works both ways.

First, I don't "fancy" my opinion above that of others. So far though you've given me no reason not to "fancy" my opinion over yours.

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can put forward with a straight face that you find Ann Coulter "sexy" (no accounting for taste) and you do agree with her politically, yet you are NOT a defender of Ann Coulter. Seems like you are persisting in riding to her rescue long after the rest of her champions have given up on this hag as a lost cause.

Third, nobody is "exploiting" Coulter. She exploits herself for the entertainment and enjoyment of the goofballs that buy her lousy books and dig her rants about how evil liberals are.




Good to know you approve of skanks like Coulter debasing civil discourse with coarse, crude and cretinous language. Some of us DO care about offensive language because we were brought up to disagree with others respectfully. Of course, it helps if the person conducts themselves in a way that deserves respect. Coulter does not and so she should receive no respect.

Oh, and as a public figure, Ann Coulter is considered fair game and thus I CAN call her a skank. She is disgustingly foul and possess a filthy mouth. I don't even want to think about what that tranny in drag looks like doing the horizontal bop. All I can speculate is she's a victim of poor parenting, lack of good breeding and bad manners.



File that in the cabinet named "duh." Of COURSE, "this is politically driven." This is primarily a political board! Politics is what we talk about here a large percentage of the time. What else are we going to focus on? David Beckham and Posh Spice?

Common ground? When I consider Coulter "skanky" and you think she's "sexy" where's the middle ground? Sleazy?