BoF




LMAO, ohh man I think thats the first time BOF made me laugh, thats good stuff. Watching a little Daily Show are we? The thought of Nancy Pelosi's vagina makes me want to climb up a tree and hide but what else do you want me to assume of Ann Coulter other than immaturity? I could get an AK-47 and raid her house if that better suits you. Sorry don't know what to say, thats what I believe.



Ahh yea I remember that convo, think I brought that up in another forum. I'm not particularly a fan of John Stewart but that joke about Peloci was funny.



I grew up in the deep south in New Orleans till the age of 18 but I'm in N.C. now. Your in Texas? I've been there a couple times, cool time link.




Or immature, I wouldn't have said that personally, our society is too politically correct. Heck in ten years we will be grilling people for making dumb blond jokes and they will discontinue the Geiko.com "so easy a caveman can do it" commercials because its potentially offensive to deceased Neanderthals, lol Then maybe one day the human race will be so dull and boaring that if extra terrestrials fly by they will take one look at us and keep going. Just a thought

I'll hold my stance I think it was immature, and driven by political bias. I have nothing more to say on it.

Be sure this bar mark will be stored for future reference.

We all now know that calling someone who disagrees with one's a faggot only merits a hand-slap for immaturity.

So when the next person calls Bush a chicken-hawk or Ann Coulter a skank I'll expect not one word of outrage.

Try and understand where I'm coming from though turnea, Position and context is important whether your liberal, conservative, or even unaffiliated. Lets take her position as a right wing writer and political commentator often known for saying controversial things, and look at the context of what she said. In the context of a sarcastic joke she says, as we all know by now, ""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 is not an elected official nor was she speaking sincerely as if she really believed that, but it was immature and little over the top and by now you can easily gather from her, that she doesn't agree with liberals in politics.

However had she been a mayor, senator, or governor, liberal or conservative, and had stood up there in a serious manner and had said this guy or that guy is a fagot because she believed it, then I would go from saying it was immature to it was outrageous. For example take John Stewart, he says things that are immature as well, in his case its his job, however anyone can make a comment but whether or not they believe what they say, or if it was a distasteful joke is something everyone should consider. I don't like many of John Edwards jokes nor many of Rosie O' Donald's points, however the most I can say or do is to claim I don't agree with them, and say the comment is immature and based on no real evidence. In the gouvernment I hold people to a higher standard. This is not a left or right issue for me.

Dude, people call Bush a chicken hawk all the time. I personally also don't care if someone call's Coulter a skank.

The funny thing to me is that people are still debating this thread. Who cares? The guy is a little fruity...

Believing it makes no difference.
What if Edwards were a homosexual?

Would it then be fine to call him a faggot?

turnea




Sure it does, its like human psychology 101, whether or not one believes what they say helps determine what there motive might have been in saying what they did. Her motive was to get a laugh from conservatives in a distasteful way by being immature.




No that would make it worse, it would mean she was being serious and using an irrelevant fact about Edwards to smash his credibility as a politician

The two phrases I'm comparing are her original comment and something Ive heard a number of people claim she said, quite frequently its that she said "John Edwards is a faggot" Your missing the point I'm trying to make though, because I'm not saying both comments don't imply something very similar. I'm saying that if you say flat out He is a faggot, its probably not a joke, certainly isn't remotely funny, therefore would have gotten and deserved even more criticism than her actual comment did. Not that what she actually said was particularly funny anyway, but I think by now you should know what I'm getting at here. I'm not excusing her remark, I'm saying people always find a way to over exemplify those they don't care for, especially when it comes to politics.

You overuse the word "immature," net2007. Here are examples I found.

Background stuff:

Spoken to Vermillion:



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=216826

Spoken to me:



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=217145

Here you referred to Vermillion again as “immature.”



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=218112

Note 1: You know I’ve always thought that the way to strengthen a post is to provide links. I guess I was wrong. Thanks for setting me straight on this.

Spoken to nighttimer:



Note 2: "Well at this point not much respect." Nighttimer? "immature" - not worthy of your respect? I'd qualify that as "belittling," but what do I know.



Stuff relating specifically to the Coulter thread.













A few points net2007.

1. It seems like for a period of two months you have been obsessed with “immaturity” as an explanation for nearly everything. You have thrown this term at nighttimer, Vermillion, and me when you didn't agree with what we posted or that we provided links – research – to make our points.

2. Since July 13, you have casually dismissed Coulter’s calling Edwards a “faggot” as “immaturity.” This is a common tactic I see here. When you can’t refute something, minimize it. I hardly think the term “immaturity” fits Coulter.

She’s 46-years-old.

Pardon me for “immaturely” providing a link, but here’s one from Wiki, which you seem to like.

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

In addition, she has a law degree from The University of Michigan.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/anncoulter

Far from being immature, Ann Coulter is cold, calculating and says what she does because it draws attention and sells books.

Just look at some of her books, and the inflammatory titles on Amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-6....x=7&Go.y=9

3. Saying something over and over and over again does not make it true. You have dismissed Coulter’s rants as “immature” on July 16, July 17, July 18, July 19 and July 21. If you remember the era before compact disks, you'll remember what a broken record sounded like. That pretty much describes your harping on the word "immature." Do you have anything else to offer?

4. Finally net2007, I need you to help me out here.

Here is how Merriam-Webster Online defines ”immaturity.”



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=immature

You don’t seem to be using the word in any traditional sense of its meaning, so please tell us how you define the term. Hold on, I've lost my train of thought. What term? Oh yeah, I remember now, it was "immaturity." How do you define "immaturity"?

BoF



Yup, I sure have thrown this term at Vermillion and you consistently, however "nightimer" Ive only talked to in the context of this particular forum and haven't seen his posting methods beyond this forum yet. Every short quote you took of me saying immature from this forum was in regards to Ann Coulter, apart from one, but it wasnt me calling Nighttimer immature. My talking about Ann Coulter as immature does help show I suggest things like Immature not if someone simply differs from me in opinion, however only if I believe it.

What would justify your reason for adding Nightimers name amongst yours and vermillions but never showing a quote where I said this about Nightimer?

I don't forget much of what I say and the only relevant quote to him was said On page 7, lets look again....



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.

So yes Among the many post I have made recently I use the term immature a bit, In this case though that was not me calling nightimer immature, it was me referring to him mentioning me not being a soldier yet having support for this war as not good, as an immature thing to suggest.

Why would I say this in reference to you though? Well the quotes below might answer that.


So, why in hell do you keep bringing up Rosie O’ Donnell, if the thread isn’t about her.
Thanks for posting anyway, net2007. A little comic relief never hurt anything. laugh.gif


More Comedy Central.
You've lost me, net2007. How do they meat this mark.

After which a moderator mentioned comments like that were unnecessary and personally I believe there is a lot worse things I could say to you than immature regarding some of the comments you make, you put me in that position to act out of line afterall, but not only is that not offensive its certainly not worth me matching your methods. Ive spoken to nightimer about points that were hypocritical more than anything, but I wasn't talking to you so it doesn't concern you, just like when I use the word immature it doesn't concern you unless its addressed to you. I rarely say anything just to say it, There is only one post I actually regret making on this site and I want to try and keep it that way. It was after Jamie had made a forum warning, and it was just a stupid post on my part.

Anyway, you know whenever a conversation like this starts up it only leads to both of us saying stupid stuff perhaps we wouldn't otherwise, so instead of going there lets just try and keep it on topic. Ive made all the points I need to make regarding Ann, so I'm just about done here.





Thanks for the English lesson but I know what the word means, in fact all that I'm pretty sure defines Ann Coulter, so I hold my stance.

Let's cut to the chase without all the endless quoting of prior passages.

I mentioned nighttimer along with Vermillion and myself because you not only called him immature, but said you didn't have much respect for him.



I did include a link by the way. See the little red leftward pointing arrow (←) at the left end the gray box above the passage I just quoted? All you have to do is click that arrow and it takes you right to the post - no link necessary.

Here's a second way to access the same information via link



Normally after a mod puts a note on something, the matter is dropped. You, however, seem to take great pleasure in rubbing it in. I don't think Ultimatejoe, being a fair guy, intended to give you a lifetime license to harp on the matter. In fact, I don't think the owners of the board wish members to club each other by quoting mod notes. I've been hear nearly three years and I have never seen this before.

Just to get back on topic, net2007,

Coulter's flamboyance is a cauculated way to sell books. It has less to do with immaturity than. She's, as they say, laughing all the way to the bank and it doesn't seem to matter who gets hurt in the process.

Numero Uno on Amazon - Not Bad

While I think monetary considerations explain Coulter's words better than minimizing them as “immaturity,” that too may be an oversimplification. The world is complex and if one is at all existential in approach, it’s not what they have found, but what they are finding. Pursuit of knowledge is a process - a never ending process.

If I remember correctly your entire last post to me, was of you quoting prior discussions of mine, If thats how you wanted to post well I guess you put me in the position to do the same right? Additionally, since you wanted to know my reason for using the word immature in reference to you, there you have it. If you didn't like the response I had to give to that, you shouldn't have brought it up. However one point you did make in your last post that i clipped down to this one paragraph, that I do agree with as well as having mentioned it myself in my last post, is that we need to stick to the topic, none of this is worth fighting over, know what I mean? However I'm actually done here I think I've said all I can on what I thought about this one, good debate on Ann folks, catch ya!

I wasn't talking about prior posts, net2007. I have 2400 here and you are welcome to find any of them and quote them. They are public record.

What I am talking about is your using a mod note from Saturday, that you didn't write, as a weapon in debate. There is a difference.

Now let's try again, to get back to Coulter. You didn't answer what I wrote last night about her.

BoF




So, I mean I hate to bring up Rosie again, but doesn't her outrageous behavior boost her career? Many people manage that, but personally as long as we are not talking about how OJ Simpson has in many ways made money off of the people he murdered, then all I can do is call them for what they are, immature. OJ is just a disgrace to society hands down, Ann and Rosie? Immature IMO. I'm not about to stalk them both for being childish sometimes. I wish they would wise up at times, but what am I to do? Thats just who they are, Ann has her good sides, I agree with her politics pretty closely although I don't think liberals are Godless. She is just an extreme Right wing conservative that could probably do more to make more open dialog with the left, and I guess I can see why you find her offensive. It works both ways though, as we all know.

Really? Could you provide some examples of her "good side." We've certainly cataloged a long list of examples of her "bad side." It would be enlightening to be provided with the other side of the story.

Thanks for that much I guess.



No, for some reason I doubt you do. Your prolonged and spirited defense of Coulter could reasonably be construed as supporting not just her politics, but the harsh, extremely ideological and abrasive manner in which she delivers them. You have repeatedly called her "immature" but I don't think you've truly distanced your agreement with her political beliefs from the caustic and divisive manner in how she expresses them.

As for making open dialog with the Left, that's going to be a good trick after Coulter's established practice of not merely burning bridges between the Right and the Left but blowing them up whenever possible. Her persona as the new Queen of Mean is too established and it's too financially lucrative for Annie to turn around now and say, "Hey, I was only joking. I didn't really mean it." She's built this perfect beast and now she can't kill it. Not that there's any indication she wants to.

Yes it does, but the examples of Rosie O' Donnell and O.J. Simpson hardly qualifies.

You certainly must not be an existentialist net2007, because you have found your answer - "immaturity" - but are finding nothing more. We've sorta hit a dead end.

Is Ann Coulter immature? I don't know. I see immaturity as more a personal thing than part of public persona. What's she like in private? How does she interact with wait people when she goes out to eat? Does she scream, jump up and down, threaten to call the manager if they don't get her food to the table hot and in short order? I don't know. How does she treat the people who work for her? Doe she go home and kick the dog? These are maturity issues, but again, I don’t know. Maybe The Smoking Gun should look into it. Maturity is a personal issue, not one that can be determined by public posturing. What I do know, and have documented, is that Coulter is making a lot of dough. We can look at her book sales and come up with a measurable variable. How do you measure the variable of "maturity"? Just saying it over and over and over does not provides quantifiable parameters.

Rosie and O.J. Simpson? Two more rouses to shift the discussion to something else. Sure Rosie makes money off her flamboyance, but I know no more about her personally than I do Coulter, so I can’t just dismiss her as “immature.” I guess it was inevitable that O. J. make a cameo appearance on this thread. I think he did it, but a jury said otherwise. Much was the same with T. Cullen Davis in Fort Worth and Mel Ignatow in Louisville Kentucky. The jury system doesn’t always get it right, net2007. Innocent people are convicted and guilty people go free. The jury system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.

With that I’ve taken care of your second smoke screen.

There are different levels of immaturity of course, but its something I think can be displayed publicly as well as in ones personal life. Well what do you think of her, if she is not immature what is she? Ive heard hoar here, but didn't see you jump on that one. After all how would we know her sexual habits? Thats much further off than immature, are you sure your just not jumping on me because the word immature isn't quite insulting enough to her?

Well, I'm hardly jumping on you, but maybe we should haul out the kid gloves. This is, BTW, a debate board. It's not that you aren't being harsh enough, but that you are using "immturity" as a cop-out to explain nearly everything. Life is more complicated than that.

I have already said that I think the primary, though not necessarily the only reason for her actions, is the desire get publicity and sell books. I don't know if that's more or less harsh than saying "immature," but my guess is that it's far more accurate. People tend to ride gravy trains when they are available and man does she ever have one.

You mention levels of maturity. That's outside the scope of this debate. There are scientific instruments that mesure maturity.

Here's a link to one of them.

Vineland Social Maturity Scale.

I don't know if she ever took one of these. If she did it's confidential information and besides it cuts off at age 30 and she's chronologically a decade and a half beyond that. So, if "immaturity" is the issue with Coulter, how do we measure it?

There are some people who will never grow old enough to find themselves "mature".

Regardless of whether Ann Coulter is mature or immature in what she's doing, she does have a mean streak, and I do not intend to quibble with anyone else in this thread about who else on whatever side also has a mean streak, because really, it's irrelevant.

It is also immature to say, "But...but....s/he's doing it, too!"

At some point a person has to just call the behavior what it is.

Absolutely! And that goes double for anyone we disagree with politically. – right.

It's simply amazing how people are discussing the sexuality of a man married for thirty years.

Monica Crowley, a less virulent version of Ann Coulter, has labeled John Edwards a "Metrosexual."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708070002

Will it never end?

Edwards does appear to be a “pretty boy” as well as a empty suite as I have heard Thompson is. Glad he dropped out.

Name calling will be prevalent on both sides and is just part of the process. Both sides have their mud and rock slingers – and they are about the same to me. I ignore them all.

That's the problem though, Ted, either implicitly or otherwise, we ignore the name calling instead of demanding a higher standard of dialogue. Heck, most of the MSM seems to revel in flame throwers like Coulter. People seem willing to do it (hold them accountable) when folks like Imus spout off, why aren't we holding all of those talking heads to similar standards? Imus was a lynching, though. I'd rather folks just turn them off and let their ratings force them into a new line of work or changing their behavior.

As long as there are pigs willing to feed at that trough, the mud will continue to flow.

Hyperbole alert!

Football games are not "war." Athletes are not "soldiers." And what happened to Don Imus was not, in any way, shape or form, a "lynching."

THIS is a lynching. Let's not trivialize such a horrid crime by applying it to a dope who got himself in the mess that let to his firing.

What happened to Imus was he didn't know when to stop, what was out-of-bounds, and who is fair game for ridicule and who is not. All that money and not a drop of class. He and Annie C. should go get a room.

I agree with nighttimer above and you as well. As long as we have peopled on both sides throwing the mud – and MoveOn and others on the left are just and bad as AC - then those who watch/listen/participate foster it.

Point taken, I'll retract the lynching anecdote, but the mob was definitely in prime form in that example. Imus, in the end, got what he deserved, I just didn't like how it played out. And, more importantly, in my opinion, there have been far worse things uttered by other talking heads that seems to get generally ignored by the MSM unless it somehow makes it onto the Drudge Report.

The word is that Joe Scarborough is about to sign a contract to do "Morning Joe" to relpace Imus on a permanent basis.

Here's the man who made fun of Betty Ford's drug addition in a not so-funny, on-air joke.

My guess is it won't take him long to top or equal anything. Imus ever said. Scarborough is a different face, but not, in my opinion, much of an improvement.

The word is IMUS just won 20 million As you might or might not know his contract covered his and he was expected ad encouraged to say the kinds of things (often insults) that he did every day.

Ted, please stop parroting (it's almost like you're mocking) my own words back at me. It’s annoying and suggests you are not articulate or creative or clever enough to come up with your own words.

My information came from The New York Post.



http://www.nypost.com/seven/07032007/tv/sc...chael_starr.htm

What is your source of information for the $20-million settlement? Does Imus get put back on the air?

This debate is still going? Well I dont know much about Imus, other than he said something that was rather rude and it was percieved as racist instead. Yet another case where a simple comment was puuled out of context, but this time we are talking a matter of race, not politics. eerily similar to what Ann said in a way, and equally blown out of proportion. Just goes to show you freedom of speech in America has its limits, and while one should be held acountable for what they say to some extent where we draw the line is what im looking at. So where do we draw that line? Do we as individuals decifer the value of another mans career based on a three letter phrase targeted at the composition of a group of basketball team members hiar, rather than the color of their skin? Do we as individuals in the case of Ann coulter decifer what the morals of a woman may be based on a few things she may say? Its obvious Ann is not to big a fan of liberals, its no secret.

I'll even point out the painfully obvious by saying she has said things I think were over the top, and yes again immature. However I've heard elaborations on her that range from she is an idiot, to she is a hoar. Just like with Imus I've heard elaborations from morons like Al Sharpton, that Imus said what he did, not because the girls had nappy hair, but because they were black and he was white, how convienient for Sharpton given almost every person he does attack is in fact white!

Its unreal if you ask me that in a free nation the three words "Nappy headed Ho's" can get you labeled not as rude, but as racist, thats a trip it really is. Ohh well, not much I can do about it other than to speak out against bullcrap like this when I get the chance, I just hope I didnt disturb you in your ongoing quest to moderate other members as a non-moderator.

You lost me. Did you post that IMUS won 20 Million. I didn’t see it in the Post story – nor the fact that he was encouraged to be irreverent.

Please clarify whet the heck you are bashing me over Bof



"Breaking news as [Matt] Drudge reports that the controversial radio host, Don Imus, has agreed to settle his contract with CBS for $20 million. Also noted by Drudge were "a non disparaging clause, legal sources claim." Speculation now that the move might open the possibility that Imus will return to the airwaves, according to Drudge possibly on WABC in New York."

http://www.drudge.com/news/97496/imus-settles-cbs-20-million

No Ted, I was talking about the phrase "word is." I clarified this with a link to the "conservative" New York Post. All I am asking is that you phrase things yourself rather than merely parrot them back. BTW: My screen name is BoF, not Bof. Inexactness drives me up the wall.






http://www.drudge.com/news/97496/imus-settles-cbs-20-million

While I don't put much stock in Drudge, he may be right about the $20-million settlement. That settlement, however, does not put Imus back on the air. So, there may not be any inconsistency in the between the rumored Imus settlement and Scarborough getting the job permanently.

Let's get back to my point, which you obscured, Ted. I don't think Scarborough is an improvement over Imus - just a lateral move.

This has moved quite a bit away from Ann Coulter, but Imus making similar statements put himself in hot water. I will predict that Scarborough will do the same, thing given enough time.

I have always thought that MSNBC moved Scarborough to the Imus time slot to get him out of prime time. I think the door rather than a contract could be the next move.

I believe it is accurate since I heard his producer on FOX say he had just signed the new 20 million $$ contract and it specifically covered him (since they wanted him to say the provocative things he was know for).

I agree that Scarborough will not be an improvement but remember that the speech you (and me occasionally) may find offensive will always be part of the show. I believe they will be far more carefull though with the racial comments given that, as before, they will have activists listening to the show ready to jump on any comment they don’t like

I've never completely discounted Imus receiving $20-million. That's really a cheap buy-out that saves protracted legal fees.

The NYP story, I linked, was from July 3. Scarborough, to my knowledge, has not inked a contract to fill the Imus time slot. I don't know if the holdup is on his or MSNBC's end.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07032007/tv/sc...chael_starr.htm

Stay tuned, Coulter will probably be on there soon.

For once Ted, we seem to be in substantial agreement.

Coulter and Joe Arpaio lend themselves to "serial threads." It's not if or when they will be involved in a new controversy, but what the controversy will be about.

Yes nice to agree for a change.

Although I am not nearly as negative on AC as you are. IMO she is a reaction to the liberal media. She effectively “yell back” at the liberal talking heads now losing market share. I agree that she “yells” a little loud and makes blanket statements than include all “liberals” as if it was a person and not a complete spectrum of ideas.

IMO when she does this she refers to the far left but you really can’t tell can you.

Joe is a showman and imo a good lawman who appeals to the publics desire for law and order and less bureaucratic crap. Love him or hate him – not much in between.

Oh come on. If Coulter is anything, she's a smart lady who likes money. Had the market for anti-conservative ranting been more lucrative than anti-liberal ranting, that gal would be so far left she'd make Michael Moore look conservative. Her political posturing is as symbolically empty as the cross she wears around her neck.

I disagree – there is no evidence that she is “doing it just for the money” in her background. She was a conservative before she was “rich”.

It just so happens imo that a lot of people in this country, including me, are fed up with the liberal bias of the mainstream media and AC is seen as hitting it head on.

If this make her lots of money – that’s fine with me.

Wake up to the fact that people listen to her because that agree with some of what she says and this is not the case with many very liberal speakers and talk shows.

I'm pretty familiar with AC's views. I listen to Rush and Boortz occasionally too.

Even Hannity, who tries my patience to no end...

...is more informed than Ann

I mean they are all pretty wrong-headed (Boortz may be an exception, he's wrong... but not wrong-headed) but when Coulter call Edwards a faggot no one is even surprised.

That says something of what we expect from her.

She's conservative I guess... but that's not her claim to fame.

She's crude and nasty and says what a lot of very sad people are thinking.

I mean they are all pretty wrong-headed (Boortz may be an exception, he's wrong... but not wrong-headed) but when Coulter call Edwards a faggot no one is even surprised.


After going over this ad naseum you and others label all she says as “hate speech” witch is ludicrous nonsense.

Certainaly being liberal you prefer Fraken and others like him that frankly make me want to puke.





Ya right – lets just blow off all she says as “crude and nasty” – you obviously have not listened much – and yes to you people who like what she says are “very sad people” – gee we could say the same for YOU but I won’t stoop to that low level.

PS

I like Hannity most of the time - he tends to "get to the point" and past the talking points.

Hate speech...

I'm trying to find another label for "faggot", help me out here....

As for Franken, I'm not a fan and have said so repeatedly on this board. I don't take him seriously as a political commentator.

If you look back, likely every anti-Franken thread on this board. Mine.

I'm not blowing anyone off, but again personal responsibility has to be a factor here. Over and over again we get comment like this from Coulter.

Franken may not be better but he sure ain't any worse.

Wuss – as AC said was here intended meaning. And I believe hjer.





I agree and that is all I have ever said. AC’s sin is that she is “popular” so when she make a nasty remark it gets jumped on very quickly – but the left has lots of folks that are just as bad or imo worse – the fact that they are not popular does not change that.