NationStates Jolt Archive

Was that a rhetorical question?

There are no rhetorical questions on NSG. :)

Gah, I can't believe I am actually starting another thread on that bitch, but Fass' one got locked and the other one was so unfortunately named that everybody rightfully got distracted.

So after calling John Edwards a "faggot", she now - after being called out on it - says the following (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256860,00.html):

"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."

The gall!

Here's what she had said in her speech (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/):
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

FYI, the part about having to go into rehab refers to this (http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=4ee83ebf-86dd-494c-a015-fd9bdf5f78e2).

Clearly she was bringing that up because it fit so well with her use of the word as "wuss". Oh, wait... :rolleyes:


Is this the most pathetic display ever? Was that a rhetorical question?

not knowing who she is, just reading what she said i can tell she full of shit

I absolutely adore Ann Coulter!




Wait...no...what's the other word...oh yeah! Hate!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/punchcoulter.gif

May I direct Miss Coulter to our 40-page discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519489) of these slurs?

Interesting how the internet trolls and the real-life trolls make the same arguments...

oh yeah

if she had called edwards a poopyhead she would have had to go to rehab too. turns out that school yard insults are completely rehabable.

Why is he/she apologizing? I really don't see the trouble in a tranny using the word faggot.

She's a stupid bitch. I can't describe how much I dislike her with great intent to melt.

Ann Coulter is a clown. He's just out there saying outrageous crap, dancing like a monkey for the cameras to entertain the Republican viewing public. Anyone who takes that guy seriously is a complete moron. He's no more serious than Howard Stern. Hell, they may even be related.

http://i15.tinypic.com/2ijjdb6.jpg

http://i19.tinypic.com/3zbyuqx.jpg

I don't defend Coulter's stance on most issues. I completely disagree with her on social issues, but the word fag has evolved in its meaning.

It was originally a slur against homosexual individuals, but its more common usage today is wuss.

This is similar to when Ozzie called local douchebag Sun Times columnist Jay Mariotti a fag. He wasn't calling him gay. He was calling him a wuss because Moronotti would write articles bashing the Sox and never had the courage to be a true sports journalist and interview players in the clubhouse.

http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/2d/Fred-phelps_pg.jpg

It all makes so much sense now! :eek:

I don't defend Coulter's stance on most issues. I completely disagree with her on social issues, but the word fag has evolved in its meaning.

It was originally a slur against homosexual individuals, but its more common usage today is wuss.

This is similar to when Ozzie called local douchebag Sun Times columnist Jay Mariotti a fag. He wasn't calling him gay. He was calling him a wuss because Moronotti would write articles bashing the Sox and never had the courage to be a true sports journalist and interview players in the clubhouse.

It was originally a slur against homosexual individuals, but its more common usage today is wuss.
O_O

In which world do you live?

@Rhaomi: Indeed...

Which, interestingly enough, is the gist of a post I made ages ago that found its way into Curious Inquiry's sig. :p

Full circle, baby.

Indeed. :)

I don't defend Coulter's stance on most issues. I completely disagree with her on social issues, but the word fag has evolved in its meaning.

It was originally a slur against homosexual individuals, but its more common usage today is wuss.

This is similar to when Ozzie called local douchebag Sun Times columnist Jay Mariotti a fag. He wasn't calling him gay. He was calling him a wuss because Moronotti would write articles bashing the Sox and never had the courage to be a true sports journalist and interview players in the clubhouse.

You're misinformed, I'm sorry.

It was originally termed to mean a bundle of sticks, which were often lit on fire for warmth. Since then, they'd burned homosexuals alive, and the term was transferred. Calling someone a fag is saying their only worth in life is to burn.

There are no rhetorical questions on NSG. :)
Which, interestingly enough, is the gist of a post I made ages ago that found its way into Curious Inquiry's sig. :p

Full circle, baby.

It was originally a slur against homosexual individuals, but its more common usage today is wuss.How much more common, though? From my impression, adults will still recognize its meaning and plenty still do use that meaning. In my schooldays, "bitch" and "Nutte" (prostitute) were "schoolyard" insults, because no one had a clue what they meant, though that changes when you get older.

I don't defend Coulter's stance on most issues. I completely disagree with her on social issues, but the word fag has evolved in its meaning.

It was originally a slur against homosexual individuals, but its more common usage today is wuss.

This is similar to when Ozzie called local douchebag Sun Times columnist Jay Mariotti a fag. He wasn't calling him gay. He was calling him a wuss because Moronotti would write articles bashing the Sox and never had the courage to be a true sports journalist and interview players in the clubhouse.

I'm sure if some had called me a faggot before my revival, I would have punched them. We all know what the implied meaning is there, and its not "wuss"

O_O

In which world do you live?

not ours

http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/2d/Fred-phelps_pg.jpg



'God fags die hates he's fags God laughs gay'?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/punchcoulter.gif

Now that is a smiley worth saving. ;)

Since then, they'd burned homosexuals alive, and the term was transferred.

When, prey tell, in the English speaking world were homosexuals purposely burnt alive, eh? Eh?

'God fags die hates he's fags God laughs gay'?

*nods sagely* Precisely.

I don't defend Coulter's stance on most issues. I completely disagree with her on social issues, but the word fag has evolved in its meaning.

It was originally a slur against homosexual individuals, but its more common usage today is wuss.

Think about it for a second. Why would the word have evolved (which I don't think it has) unless it was still a slur, based on the idea that homosexual males are effeminate? Your explanation is no less offensive than the original--it still links homosexuality with weakness.

Think about it for a second. Why would the word have evolved (which I don't think it has) unless it was still a slur, based on the idea that homosexual males are effeminate? Your explanation is no less offensive than the original--it still links homosexuality with weakness.

The word "gay" is an equal slur nowadays. This reminds me of the constant attempt to change the word from Negro to "black" to "African-American". When the change was made to "black" some people began to use it as a slur, thus prompting yet another change.

Homosexual is a slur. Gay is a slur. Faggot is a slur. The difference is only that the last one there is imposed.

It doesn't matter what gays call themselves - someone will use that exact word as a slur.

And I am convinced Coulter meant it. I mean, come on.

The word "gay" is an equal slur nowadays. This reminds me of the constant attempt to change the word from Negro to "black" to "African-American". When the change was made to "black" some people began to use it as a slur, thus prompting yet another change.

Homosexual is a slur. Gay is a slur. Faggot is a slur. The difference is only that the last one there is imposed.

It doesn't matter what gays call themselves - someone will use that exact word as a slur.

And I am convinced Coulter meant it. I mean, come on.

Gay is only a slur in a slurring context. It's not a slur when used as "gay rights," for instance (unless you're using it in a sneering tone, I suppose), but it can be in the "that's so gay" sense. No hard and fast rule there.

But I don't see a non-slur way to use faggot when referring to a gay person.

Now that is a smiley worth saving. ;)

:p

Itsa good 'un!

Is this the most pathetic display ever?
She's an uncharismatic moron, and I usually try to ignore everything about her. Frankly, I don't think she's worth the attention she's getting - though she's still a moron, and this is indeed a pathetic display.
I don't defend Coulter's stance on most issues. I completely disagree with her on social issues, but the word fag has evolved in its meaning.

It was originally a slur against homosexual individuals, but its more common usage today is wuss.
Bullshit. It's still used as a derogatory term, and not as "wuss" but as a anti-homosexual slur. You're just living in a fantasy world...
Homosexual is a slur.

No, it isn't.

Are we going to have to merge this with the other thread talking about if gay is or isn't hate speech? This is already getting repetitive.

When, prey tell, in the English speaking world were homosexuals purposely burnt alive, eh? Eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28epithet%29

The origins of the word in this sense are rather obscure.

It is often claimed that the derivation is associated directly with faggot meaning "bundle of sticks for burning", since homosexuals were supposedly burnt at the stake in medieval England. This, however, was never an established punishment for homosexuality in England, although, according to one source, those accused of homosexual acts were sometimes doused in fuel and used in place of sticks for the burning of supposed witches.[1] However, this practice ended centuries before the word faggot became associated with gay people. [2]

The word has also been used since the late sixteenth century to mean "old or unpleasant woman", and this would appear the most likely derivation.[3] Female terms, it should be noted, are often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women may be a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the nineteenth century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[4] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried", an etymology that is more plausible if one considers the use of "baggage" as a pejorative term for old women.[5]

The Yiddish word faygele, lit. "little bird", is claimed by some as the origin of the word. The difference in form between the two words makes this unlikely to be true, although it may have had a reinforcing effect.[6]



So you can interpret it however you want, but the fact remains: homosexuals burned, and the word "fag" is synonomous with an item to be burned.

Gay is only a slur in a slurring context. It's not a slur when used as "gay rights," for instance (unless you're using it in a sneering tone, I suppose), but it can be in the "that's so gay" sense. No hard and fast rule there.

But I don't see a non-slur way to use faggot when referring to a gay person.

That's because the "first use" of the word affects its definition in context.

Sure, "gay rights" is not a slur. But, "that's so gay" is.

Hard to say that Coulter was referring to a cigarette, or a bundle of sticks. I doubt it.

http://www.ljudmila.org/siqrd/oznanila/29_december_slika%20meseca-6faggots-mala.jpg

Irony would be Isiah Washington and Tim Hardaway caught on the Down Low. With Mann Coulter watching as their fag hag.

She's an uncharismatic moron, and I usually try to ignore everything about her. Frankly, I don't think she's worth the attention she's getting - though she's still a moron, and this is indeed a pathetic display.

Yeah, you're not the first one to say that and I agree to a certain point, which is why I hesitated to make the thread in the first place and wouldn't have done so had not the first part of this saga been posted on here before.

But at the same time I'm not so sure. Yeah, we can ignore her and maybe it would be the best thing to do, but to be honest I think she has a bit of a too high of a profile for the sane half of the people to sit back and say "Eh, let's not give her any attention and she'll go away".
If nobody (apart from a tiny minority) gave her any attention, that would work. But as it is right now? Not so much.

I'm not sure, though. :/

May I direct Miss Coulter to [URL="http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519489"]Interesting how the internet trolls and the real-life trolls make the same arguments...

Where did you suppose the 'net trolls get it from? A Crackerjack box?

Can't say I agree completely with an unreconstructed Thatcherite, but Andrew Sullivan essentially sums up my view nicely here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/faggots.html

Yeah, you're not the first one to say that and I agree to a certain point, which is why I hesitated to make the thread in the first place and wouldn't have done so had not the first part of this saga been posted on here before.

But at the same time I'm not so sure. Yeah, we can ignore her and maybe it would be the best thing to do, but to be honest I think she has a bit of a too high of a profile for the sane half of the people to sit back and say "Eh, let's not give her any attention and she'll go away".
If nobody (apart from a tiny minority) gave her any attention, that would work. But as it is right now? Not so much.

I'm not sure, though. :/
I'm not either... I mean, I just thought she was a conservative-right loon, kinda like an uncharismatic Michael Moore (Come on, he looks like Santa, you can't hate the guy :p)

But I fear she's got a bigger following than I thought, so it might be right to make a thread about it. Like I said, I don't know. I just know I don't like her, and I hope she slinks back into oblivion and stops lowering the level of debate... It's like everything she touches turns to mud!
(And not the nice LG-kind either!)

I don't like the whole "faggot comes from burning" thing, it's much too negative.

I prefer to think of it as this.. Faggot means a bundle of wood, right? Well, get a bunch of us gay guys together and you're gonna have a lot of wood. :D

Can't say I agree completely with an unreconstructed Thatcherite, but Andrew Sullivan essentially sums up my view nicely here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/faggots.html

That was actually very nicely said indeed :)

Can't say I agree completely with an unreconstructed Thatcherite, but Andrew Sullivan essentially sums up my view nicely here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/faggots.html
Excellent article.

This, however, was never an established punishment for homosexuality in England, although, according to one source, those accused of homosexual acts were sometimes doused in fuel and used in place of sticks for the burning of supposed witches.


So you can interpret it however you want, but the fact remains: homosexuals burned, and the word "fag" is synonomous with an item to be burned.

You are arguing on the basis of a single third-hand source? - one which implausibly claims that in order to burn a witch you first set fire to a heap of fuel-soaked homosexuals? Now, how plausible is that?

Homosexuals were not burnt on the basis of being homosexuals.

I'm not either... I mean, I just thought she was a conservative-right loon, kinda like an uncharismatic Michael Moore (Come on, he looks like Santa, you can't hate the guy :p)

But I fear she's got a bigger following than I thought, so it might be right to make a thread about it. Like I said, I don't know. I just know I don't like her, and I hope she slinks back into oblivion and stops lowering the level of debate... It's like everything she touches turns to mud!
(And not the nice LG-kind either!)
It's really frustrating. I was going to mention Fred Phelps & his Crazy Bunch as nutcases we should ignore so they'll go away - after all, most everybody actually thinks they're nutcases, as opposed to Coulter, incredibly enough.
But even fucking Fred Phelps isn't just a lonely nutcase out in the prairie anymore as soon as the fucking media keeps giving him and his deluded sister airtime to spew their deranged hatred.
So, basically, as soon as people like that get regular national media exposure, is it really the best answer to say "Let's ignore them so they go away"? Because in a way I agree, of course, but at the same time, who says they'll go away?

And just imagine every left-wing commentator would decide to ignore Coulter - hell, she could go on lying and defiling without anybody even pointing out her lies.

You are arguing on the basis of a single third-hand source?

Homosexuals were not burnt on the basis of being homosexuals.

Accused of homosexual acts = can be doused in fuel and lit on fire.

Gay is only a slur in a slurring context. It's not a slur when used as "gay rights," for instance (unless you're using it in a sneering tone, I suppose), but it can be in the "that's so gay" sense. No hard and fast rule there.

But I don't see a non-slur way to use faggot when referring to a gay person.

What if your British and having a cigarette?

Then you'd be referring to the cigarette and not the gay person.

Exactly, but you can still laugh when the Brits say they're going out for a fag.;)

What if your British and having a cigarette?

Then you'd be referring to the cigarette and not the gay person.

Exactly, but you can still laugh when the Brits say they're going out for a fag.;)

The bitch in question is neither british nor funny.

Accused of homosexual acts = can be doused in fuel and lit on fire.

Nope. According to the Buggery Act of 1533 the punishment was death by hanging.

Nope. According to the Buggery Act of 1533 the punishment was death by hanging.

Tell that to ^ Fone, Byrne (2000) Homophobia, the reference for the statement.

It's really frustrating. I was going to mention Fred Phelps & his Crazy Bunch as nutcases we should ignore so they'll go away - after all, most everybody actually thinks they're nutcases, as opposed to Coulter, incredibly enough.
But even fucking Fred Phelps isn't just a lonely nutcase out in the prairie anymore as soon as the fucking media keeps giving him and his deluded sister airtime to spew their deranged hatred.
And they've even got their own TV show (Channel?) with which they can broadcast their hateful messages... That's one reason why they get so much airtime. And it sells! Spewing hatred brings in the viewers.

So, basically, as soon as people like that get regular national media exposure, is it really the best answer to say "Let's ignore them so they go away"? Because in a way I agree, of course, but at the same time, who says they'll go away?
The thing is that there is a line somewhere when you have to speak up. Ignorance, bigotry and hatred is contagious, and lies are often easier to believe than the truth, and the only way to fight it is to speak up and bring sensible arguments to the table. It's not always easy to see that line though, but at that point you can't afford to ignore them any longer.

I guess mrs. Coulter has passed that line...


And just imagine every left-wing commentator would decide to ignore Coulter - hell, she could go on lying and defiling without anybody even pointing out her lies.
You're right, of course. As long as people take her seriously and listen to her, I guess someone should speak up against her.

But also, imagine every right-wing pundit ignoring her, and bringing the debates back up from the gutter and away from the lies and mud throwing...

*snip*...she could go on lying and defiling without anybody even pointing out her lies.

What lies?

What lies?

Everything she says?

Everything she says?

I meant specifically.

Tell that to ^ Fone, Byrne (2000) Homophobia, the reference for the statement.

A book neither of us have read?

Does it not strike you as a tad suspicious that the word faggot didn't come to be recorded as being used to mean homosexual until the last century?

Would that we lived in a world where Ann Coulter died, and Anna Nicole was still alive. Then, we could ignore them both :D

I've noticed something. Nobody says anything when Ann Coulter speaks truth to power (seriously, read her books) but the moment she says something that could be somehow construed as offensive, everybody jumps all over her (figuratively speaking). Maybe I'm wrong here, but in a great democracy like ours, shouldn't the tenet of free speech come before ensuring that nobody's feelings get hurt?

I've noticed something. Nobody says anything when Ann Coulter speaks truth to power (seriously, read her books) but the moment she says something that could be somehow construed as offensive, everybody jumps all over her (figuratively speaking). Maybe I'm wrong here, but in a great democracy like ours, shouldn't the tenet of free speech come before ensuring that nobody's feelings get hurt?

She can say anything she likes, and we can complain (also covered by free speech). There's no constitutional amendment says we have to listen to her. And, I don't have enough time to read things I want to, why waste my time on her drivel?

You are arguing on the basis of a single third-hand source? - one which implausibly claims that in order to burn a witch you first set fire to a heap of fuel-soaked homosexuals? Now, how plausible is that?

Homosexuals were not burnt on the basis of being homosexuals.
That is completely and utterly pointless. The usage of the word back in Medieval times is irrelevant. Point is, today it is almost always used to refer to homosexuals, and is almost always offensive. The only exceptions is when it is used to refer to cigarettes (in which case the context would make it fairly obvious) or used as a term of endearment between gay people, much like some black people have appropriated the word "******". But when used by straight people as an insult, it is an offensive slur. There's no getting around that.

And before anybody brings it up, yes, it is still a slur even if it is used as a generic insult and not a literal accusation of homosexuality. Coulter can claim that she used "faggot" as a substitute for "wuss" all she wants -- but it is still offensive because it implies that homosexuality is a "wussy" and undesirable quality.

What lies?

"Canada sent troops to Vietnam."

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" - about four widows of victims of 9/11

Most of the rest of her utterances are just trash concealed as opinions...

I've noticed something. Nobody says anything when Ann Coulter speaks truth to power (seriously, read her books) but the moment she says something that could be somehow construed as offensive, everybody jumps all over her (figuratively speaking). Maybe I'm wrong here, but in a great democracy like ours, shouldn't the tenet of free speech come before ensuring that nobody's feelings get hurt?
I've never read her books, but I've gotten the impression from her quotes and TV appearances that her idea of "speaking truth to power" is criticizing the right for not being as bat-shit insane as she'd like them to be.

"Canada sent troops to Vietnam."
"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" - about four widows of victims of 9/11

Most of the rest of her utterances are just trash concealed as opinions...

what so called reports she been reading

She can say anything she likes, and we can complain (also covered by free speech). There's no constitutional amendment says we have to listen to her. And, I don't have enough time to read things I want to, why waste my time on her drivel?

Because it's not drivel. Really. Make an effort to read up on her.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" - about four widows of victims of 9/11

And ya know what? Neither have I. Coulter said that after roughly a page of all the activities those women went through after their husband's deaths. (i.e. claiming that the "meager" restitution granted by the government wasn't enough, appearing on countless talk shows, "serious" news shows, demanding a Congressional investigation to demand why, in essense, GWB didn't teleport from the elementary school in Florida and stop the planes himself, etc. Seriously, after all that, "you're no longer a grieving spouse, you're a C-list celebrity," to put it in Coulter's words.)

I've never read her books, but I've gotten the impression from her quotes and TV appearances that her idea of "speaking truth to power" is criticizing the right for not being as bat-shit insane as she'd like them to be.

Not at all. In fact, it's the opposite; she routinely criticizes the left for being too far to the left.

Not at all. In fact, it's the opposite; she routinely criticizes the left for being too far to the left.
How is criticizing the left for being too far to the left the opposite of criticizing the right for not being far enough to the right?

How is criticizing the left for being too far to the left the opposite of criticizing the right for not being far enough to the right?

Opposite side of the political spectrum, opposite movement.

Opposite side of the political spectrum, opposite movement.
No, not really. If you reverse every part of something, it ends up being the same. "I am happy" is the same as "I'm not unhappy", more or less. Same here. She wants the opposite ends of the political spectrum to do opposite things, but in the end she wants everyone to be as right-wing as she is. Hence her "speaking truth to power" being not exactly a good thing. Most people would consider "speaking truth to power" to mean an underdog telling a corrupt government its flaws and mistakes -- but when you tell a corrupt government to take on even more flaws and make more mistakes, it doesn't exactly work as well...

Opposite side of the political spectrum, opposite movement.

Let's not forget about Ann Coulter's blatant intellectual dishonesty. She accuses media outlets of "liberal bias" and cites quotes that were cited by the New York Times, and tells us that the New York Times itself said that or advocated it.

She plays fast and loose with statistics, and sometimes just plain makes them up. She overloads Lexis-Nexis with useless keywords in order to "prove" that certain events weren't covered or did not occur.

Let's not forget about Ann Coulter's blatant intellectual dishonesty. She accuses media outlets of "liberal bias" and cites quotes that were cited by the New York Times, and tells us that the New York Times itself said that or advocated it.

She plays fast and loose with statistics, and sometimes just plain makes them up. She overloads Lexis-Nexis with useless keywords in order to "prove" that certain events weren't covered or did not occur.

Lexis-Nexis???

Let's not forget about Ann Coulter's blatant intellectual dishonesty. She accuses media outlets of "liberal bias" and cites quotes that were cited by the New York Times, and tells us that the New York Times itself said that or advocated it.

She plays fast and loose with statistics, and sometimes just plain makes them up. She overloads Lexis-Nexis with useless keywords in order to "prove" that certain events weren't covered or did not occur.

My favorite bit of her hypocrisy is her claim that the left is all Ivy-League elitist snobs, whereas she represents the voice of the common folk. That from a woman who grew up in the privileged section of Connecticut and whose father's claim to fame was busting a union for the Reagan administration. Yeah, the Coulters have a long record of championing the working man.

No, not really. If you reverse every part of something, it ends up being the same. "I am happy" is the same as "I'm not unhappy", more or less. Same here. She wants the opposite ends of the political spectrum to do opposite things, but in the end she wants everyone to be as right-wing as she is. Hence her "speaking truth to power" being not exactly a good thing. Most people would consider "speaking truth to power" to mean an underdog telling a corrupt government its flaws and mistakes -- but when you tell a corrupt government to take on even more flaws and make more mistakes, it doesn't exactly work as well...

But it's not the same. I was talking about the other side of the political spectrum and movement with relation to distance from the center (sorry for the consfusion).

She looks like she needs a good exorcism by a black robed priest. I really know nothing about her beliefs, but she has that I'm fanatical about something look. It is the classic I am right and you will burn look.

Lexis-Nexis???

Must you really ask?

Lex-Nex ring a bell?

It's Google for ubernerds, basically.

My favorite bit of her hypocrisy is her claim that the left is all Ivy-League elitist snobs, whereas she represents the voice of the common folk. That from a woman who grew up in the privileged section of Connecticut and whose father's claim to fame was busting a union for the Reagan administration. Yeah, the Coulters have a long record of championing the working man.

She doesn't claim to be the voice of the common folk nor does she claim that all the left is made of are Ivy-League elitist snobs (though they do have more than their fair share of them).

And ya know what? Neither have I. Coulter said that after roughly a page of all the activities those women went through after their husband's deaths. (i.e. claiming that the "meager" restitution granted by the government wasn't enough, appearing on countless talk shows, "serious" news shows, demanding a Congressional investigation to demand why, in essense, GWB didn't teleport from the elementary school in Florida and stop the planes himself, etc. Seriously, after all that, "you're no longer a grieving spouse, you're a C-list celebrity," to put it in Coulter's words.)

So basically, because they felt the restitution wasn't enough and because they wanted answers to 9/11 and the media got interested in them, they were "self-obsessed" women who were "reveling in their status as celebrities."

Yeah. It must also mean that they're enjoying the death of their husbands. :rolleyes:

She looks like she needs a good exorcism by a black robed priest. I really know nothing about her beliefs, but she has that I'm fanatical about something look. It is the classic I am right and you will burn look.

And now she's being criticized for her looks. What's next?

And now she's being criticized for her looks. What's next?

She's getting more and more like Michael Moore every day, eh? Hopefully, she'll be funny someday soon too...

Lee Salem, the president of Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes Coulter's column, later defended Coulter by suggesting that she was a brilliant satirist who does not mean it when she periodically wishes violence or even death on liberals and their enablers.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight...

She doesn't claim to be the voice of the common folk nor does she claim that all the left is made of are Ivy-League elitist snobs (though they do have more than their fair share of them).

Oh, please. Maybe not in so many words but the attitude oozes from her. All conservatives want you to believe that they're just looking out for the Little Guy. Voting Republican these days is the equivalent of voting to give your boss a raise while keeping your salary flat, at best.

And now she's being criticized for her looks. What's next?

What she says, perhaps?

So basically, because they felt the restitution wasn't enough and because they wanted answers to 9/11 and the media got interested in them, they were "self-obsessed" women who were "reveling in their status as celebrities."

Yeah. It must also mean that they're enjoying the death of their husbands. :rolleyes:

Yes. Those women were reveling in the media's attention. Maybe it slippd their minds that the only reason they're getting any publicity at all is that their husbands died?! Using this new-found attention, they used it to push a leftist agenda, like putting Condi Rice (the Secy of Defense back then) on trial during a war.

Man, what selfless, upstanding women they are! :rolleyes:

Yes. Those women were reveling in the media's attention. Maybe it slippd their minds that the only reason they're getting any publicity at all is that their husbands died?! Using this new-found attention, they used it to push a leftist agenda, like putting Condi Rice (the Secy of Defense back then) on trial during a war.

Man, what selfless, upstanding women they are! :rolleyes:
No worse than a mother founding an anti-drug organization after her son dies of an overdose, or a father who starts a missing children's fund after his daughter is kidnapped and murdered.

The widows took personal tragedy and used it as an opportunity to push for progress and accountability in government. There's nothing wrong with that.

Yes. Those women were reveling in the media's attention. Maybe it slippd their minds that the only reason they're getting any publicity at all is that their husbands died?! Using this new-found attention, they used it to push a leftist agenda, like putting Condi Rice (the Secy of Defense back then) on trial during a war.

Man, what selfless, upstanding women they are! :rolleyes:
Yeah, I see you and mrs. Coulter saying that - but not offering up any evidence that they in any way enjoyed it. Maybe they did what they did out of respect for their dead husbands and out of sorrow for their losses? Heaven forbid, that would be unthinkable eh?

You really believe that forming the 9/11 comission was a mistake born from the selfish desires of these women? That it was silly to expect mrs. Rice to testify before said comission? (Don't know where you got the "put on trial" from...)

Nah, to me the attack on these women is just a petty smear from an utter loon. You may critizise them for their acts - come on, be honest and say you don't like them because they "pushed a leftist agenda" - but claiming that they enjoyed their husbands deaths is simply an imbesilic and dishonest smear.

But hey, that's how mrs. Coulter rolls, isn't it...

B- b- but I thought Kerry was a faggot...

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h28/jackheh/faggot.png

Uh... I'll just show myself out...

Ann Coulter is a ****.

Don't worry, **** is just a school-yard taunt that means "raging bitch".

I've noticed something. Nobody says anything when Ann Coulter speaks truth to power (seriously, read her books) but the moment she says something that could be somehow construed as offensive, everybody jumps all over her (figuratively speaking). Maybe I'm wrong here, but in a great democracy like ours, shouldn't the tenet of free speech come before ensuring that nobody's feelings get hurt?

She can say what she wants. Freedom of speech is in no way freedom from consequence. If you say something to get a reaction, don't be surpised when it comes.

Yes. Those women were reveling in the media's attention. Maybe it slippd their minds that the only reason they're getting any publicity at all is that their husbands died?! Using this new-found attention, they used it to push a leftist agenda, like putting Condi Rice (the Secy of Defense back then) on trial during a war.

Man, what selfless, upstanding women they are! :rolleyes:
1. Sec. Rice has never been the Sec of Defence, she was the national security advisor.

2. I want you to go to the nearest MADD meeting, or any other group, like say the National Holocaust Museum and repeat what you just said, that you think surviors should not do anything to ask for answers or make sure it never happens again. After they tear you to shreads, come on back.

"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."

Bullshit.

May I direct Miss Coulter to our 40-page discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519489) of these slurs?

Interesting how the internet trolls and the real-life trolls make the same arguments...

lol

I was thinking the same thing.

The word "Faggot" isn't offensive to or has nothing to do with gays? LMFAO! Just like how the word "gay" isnt offensive to or has nothing to do with homosexuals. This is too funny/sad/stupid. you pick.

I've noticed something. Nobody says anything when Ann Coulter speaks truth to power (seriously, read her books) but the moment she says something that could be somehow construed as offensive, everybody jumps all over her (figuratively speaking). Maybe I'm wrong here, but in a great democracy like ours, shouldn't the tenet of free speech come before ensuring that nobody's feelings get hurt?

Exactly where was the truth to power in her statement, K? Edwards isn't gay. Gays are not necessarily effeminate. Effeminacy is not equivalent to weakness.

Perhaps people are jumping on her because she's not speaking truth to power at all.

Faggot is only offensive to homosexuals who aren't part of her target demographic so it doesn't matter? I'm guessing this is her underlying logic to continually using the word.

I hate that woman. She doesn't have anything intelligent to criticise Edwards for so she results to name calling? WTF?

I'm pretty sure people like her being darlings of the Republicans are a big part of the reason they are fallign out of favor so fast.

I'm pretty sure people like her being darlings of the Republicans are a big part of the reason they are fallign out of favor so fast.

Man, having a day job sucks - all the juicier threads are already six pages deep by the time I get home. Are Republicans really falling out of favour? I have my doubts - and America has a short-term memory disorder that'd make an Alzheimer's patient blush.

Bullshit.

Ayeh.

Man, having a day job sucks - all the juicier threads are already six pages deep by the time I get home. Are Republicans really falling out of favour? I have my doubts - and America has a short-term memory disorder that'd make an Alzheimer's patient blush.

Well we dont have a Republican majority in the House or Senate anymore so it would seem that they were.

We still love our right-wing Democrats though :p

And now she's being criticized for her looks. What's next?
How does this differ from any other occasion? She isn't ugly, nor is she even manlike, but try telling that to people incensed by her ...rhetoric. Nevermind that she is a hell of a lot more attractive than a large amount of people here.

Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that she is a troll of sorts. :)

Well we dont have a Republican majority in the House or Senate anymore so it would seem that they were.

I was given to understand Joe Lieberman was planning on being a dick and voting with the Republicans, though. Or have I been misinformed yet again?

FYI, the part about having to go into rehab refers to this (http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=4ee83ebf-86dd-494c-a015-fd9bdf5f78e2).

Clearly she was bringing that up because it fit so well with her use of the word as "wuss". Oh, wait... :rolleyes:


Is this the most pathetic display ever? Was that a rhetorical question?

She needn't have worried. The guy from Grey's Anatomy needed treatment to mend a severe injury to his reputation as a decent human being.

Coulter had hers amputated years ago. The only ailment Coulter has left is a severe case of Stupid as well as chronic ass-hattery. The ass-hattery treatment is a horribly radical procedure that involves intensive gene therapy to reconnect the nerves that ordinarily connect the sense organs to the brain and the speech center to the logic center. No one would dream of enacting such a therapy on an unwilling patient.

And as Ron White tells us, "you can't cure stupid."

Gah, I can't believe I am actually starting another thread on that bitch, but Fass' one got locked and the other one was so unfortunately named that everybody rightfully got distracted.

So after calling John Edwards a "faggot", she now - after being called out on it - says the following (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256860,00.html):



The gall!

Here's what she had said in her speech (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/):


FYI, the part about having to go into rehab refers to this (http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=4ee83ebf-86dd-494c-a015-fd9bdf5f78e2).

Clearly she was bringing that up because it fit so well with her use of the word as "wuss". Oh, wait... :rolleyes:


Is this the most pathetic display ever? Was that a rhetorical question?
Who'da thunk a bundle of kindling would make such a ruckus?

Luvya

I absolutely adore Ann Coulter!




Wait...no...what's the other word...oh yeah! Hate!

Loath? Despise? Abominate? Revile? vomit upon? Abhor? Pleasure with your tongue?

Gay is only a slur in a slurring context. It's not a slur when used as "gay rights," for instance (unless you're using it in a sneering tone, I suppose), but it can be in the "that's so gay" sense. No hard and fast rule there.

But I don't see a non-slur way to use faggot when referring to a gay person.

I do I do!
I have a gay friend.
He mentioned some guy being hot.
I called him a faggot.
He told me I was just afraid of my feelings.
I asked him to kiss me.
He said no, he doesn't kiss faggots.

See? It wasn't a slur. It was damn funny.

How does this differ from any other occasion? She isn't ugly, nor is she even manlike, but try telling that to people incensed by her ...rhetoric. Nevermind that she is a hell of a lot more attractive than a large amount of people here.

Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that she is a troll of sorts. :)

I can see that in a strictly "by the numbers" sort of way one might decide that she must be good looking. She's thin. No distorting facial anomalies. Long blond hair.

But every time I look at her I remember the George Orwell quote, "after 40 a man is responsible for his face." As you mature your character starts to show through. If you've always got your face contorted in a fake rictus of saccharine benevolence while spewing bitter venom, well it's going to show through. And just looking at her is going to be unsettling.

But every time I look at her I remember the George Orwell quote, "after 40 a man is responsible for his face." As you mature your character starts to show through. If you've always got your face contorted in a fake rictus of saccharine benevolence while spewing bitter venom, well it's going to show through. And just looking at her is going to be unsettling.
That captures her amazingly well.

lol

I was thinking the same thing.

The word "Faggot" isn't offensive to or has nothing to do with gays? LMFAO! Just like how the word "gay" isnt offensive to or has nothing to do with homosexuals. This is too funny/sad/stupid. you pick.

Aw shucks, I'll take a little bit of everything! :)

How does this differ from any other occasion? She isn't ugly, nor is she even manlike, but try telling that to people incensed by her ...rhetoric. Nevermind that she is a hell of a lot more attractive than a large amount of people here.

Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that she is a troll of sorts. :)

I dunno, man. Seeing the pictures of her and Howard Stern side by side . . .
She could be an elaborate hoax!

I was given to understand Joe Lieberman was planning on being a dick and voting with the Republicans, though. Or have I been misinformed yet again?

He's caucusing with the Democrats. Which gives the Democrats a majority despite there not being any more of them than there are Republicans.

How he will vote is nobody's guess but his. But looking at his record gives us a clue. And not just his legislative votes. His procedural ones.

$29.99 plus shipping & handling. (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/x/1/coulter_actionfigure.jpg)

And she talks! (http://www.talkingpresidents.com/products-af-coulter.shtml)

This was in yesterday's Rocky Mountain News, and is, I think, very well reasoned.

The 'liberal media' ploy
Paul Campos

This weekend, I was asked to address the annual Colorado Young Democrats convention, regarding how the media frame political stories. Here is an edited version of what I said:

As young Democratic activists, it's important to appreciate that you're playing a game that's in significant ways rigged against you. Republicans have engaged in several decades of nonstop whining about "liberal media bias," to the point where, ironically enough, the media let Republicans get away with things that would instantly destroy any Democrat.

A perfect example is provided by this morning's New York Times. It has a front-page story about the Conservative Political Action Conference, at which various Republican presidential candidates gave speeches. The story notes the conference "drew thousands of attendees, many of whom waited in a long line out the door for an appearance by Ann Coulter."

What the story fails to mention is that, during her speech, Coulter called Sen. John Edwards a "faggot." This is standard stuff from Coulter, who in July called former Vice President Al Gore a "total fag" on national TV. Now consider that earlier in the day at this same conference, leading Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney told the audience, "I'm happy to learn also that after you hear me, you're going to \[hear] from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!"

Romney then went on to note he was particularly glad to see members of "the mainstream media" in attendance, so they could get the views of "moderates" like Coulter.

Of course this was Romney's idea of a joke, but no politician ever tells a joke in public without a purpose. The purpose of this joke was to signal to the Republican base that Romney is proud to be associated with a true conservative like Coulter, who isn't afraid to tell those liberal faggots exactly what she thinks of their limp-wristed faggotry.

Consider how remarkable all this is. One of the frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination goes out of his way to associate himself with a woman who makes a habit of calling U.S. senators and vice presidents "faggots" - and who proceeded to do so at the very event at which he praised her - and the nation's newspaper of record doesn't think it's appropriate to inform its readers of these facts. (A spokesman for Romney later characterized Coulter's remarks as "offensive.")

Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Coulter a \[expletive]. (Interestingly, unlike "faggot," American newspapers won't print this word, although it's no more offensive). That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing.

Yet if I were to point out that Coulter is, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, a \[expletive], I suspect much outrage would ensue. After all, Nancy Pelosi is giving a speech later tonight inside this same hotel, in which - in this hypothetical scenario - someone Pelosi doesn't know (i.e., me) would have called Coulter a \[expletive].

If such a thing were to happen, the entire right-wing noise machine would leap into action. Ann Althouse would probably write a column in The New York Times about how, if Pelosi were really a feminist, she would unequivocally condemn some guy Pelosi has never heard of, who called Coulter a \[expletive] in front of 75 people in a hotel room in Denver.

Meanwhile, Coulter calls John Edwards a faggot on national TV, at the same podium from which Mitt Romney had just told the world how much he loves Coulter, and the result is that, rather than being shunned by every decent human being on the planet - or at least by people who would like to be elected president - Coulter is immediately invited on to CNN to discuss her views further.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is your "liberal media" in action.

This was in yesterday's Rocky Mountain News, and is, I think, very well reasoned.

Indeed it was...

This was in yesterday's Rocky Mountain News, and is, I think, very well reasoned.Excellent piece (apart from the fact that I don't think his example of himself and Pelosi really fits, but anyway, would the roles really have been reversed and a left-wing pundit would have called Coulter a **** and a Democratic candidate had associated himself with him, he is definitely right, a huge brouhaha would have ensued).*

It's true, the right has conjured up the spectre of "liberal bias in the media" so often it's become an assumed truth and the media fears nothing more than to be tarred with that brush and thus rendered inherently unbelievable.

I also am appalled that CNN had Coulter on their program!
Or wait, is "Hannity & Colmes" on CNN? I thought it was on Fox News?


*Actually, gah, it's still not really comparable, because **** isn't even comparable to "faggot", esp. when the latter is used by hate-filled right-winger. It's crass and crude, but it's not the same kind of intended character assassination. Damn. The left needs new cuss words! ;p

Ann has been tarred and feathered so often, I'm sure she has a special "Coulter Molter" for removing the same :p

Ann has been tarred and feathered so often, I'm sure she has a special "Coulter Molter" for removing the same :p

:D

I also am appalled that CNN had Coulter on their program!
Or wait, is "Hannity & Colmes" on CNN? I thought it was on Fox News?


She was supposed to be on CNN but canceled when she heard she'd be on with John Aravosis of AmericaBlog. Went to the safer confines of Fox News, Hannity and Colmes.

She was supposed to be on CNN but canceled when she heard she'd be on with John Aravosis of AmericaBlog. Went to the safer confines of Fox News, Hannity and Colmes.

I suppose she was tired after speaking all that truth to power, she didn't want to have to deal with someone who might be a little challenging.

I suppose she was tired after speaking all that truth to power, she didn't want to have to deal with someone who might be a little challenging.
She's never been a fan of the hostile environment, just like Limbaugh and all the others like them.

She was supposed to be on CNN but canceled when she heard she'd be on with John Aravosis of AmericaBlog. Went to the safer confines of Fox News, Hannity and Colmes.Ah, thanks.

She's never been a fan of the hostile environment, just like Limbaugh and all the others like them.

I always hold up Rush and Ann as role-model for correct behavior, on how to get along well with others. I hope my niece and nephew are following their splendid examples.

*Actually, gah, it's still not really comparable, because **** isn't even comparable to "faggot", esp. when the latter is used by hate-filled right-winger. It's crass and crude, but it's not the same kind of intended character assassination. Damn. The left needs new cuss words! ;p

How about 'Coulter'?
For example:
OMG, that guy is a total Coulter!
or
Well, you've gone and made a complete Coulter of yourself.
or
Oh, now that's just Coulterish behaviour.

Quite versatile, isn't it?

Only a damn Democrat would get upset at someone insinuating that a Democrat is a pussy or a faggot or whatever. I honestly wish that our country would split in half like the Roman Empire did and have one side be the 100% Conservative side with Republicans and Libertarians and the Other side be the liberal side with the Atheists, Democrats, Black Panthers, NAACP, Socialists, Commies, Pacifists, and all your other miscellaneous subversive elements.

I bet that within 20 years the Pinko side would be a bankrupt dictatorship and the Good side would be a wealthy, safe, well educated nation that was the envy of the world.

All that being said, us Conservatives would benefit a lot if my fellow conservatives were more environmentalist and less Christian.

The beauty of her comment is that folks like the actor that played the leader in "Braveheart" and an actor in one of those doctor shows goes to rehab after they say some non-PC thing. A non PC conservative would be intelligent enough to understand that point but your weak minded mouth breathing liberals only hear a non-PC word and that start going "Ooh! Ooh!" and jumping up and down like a bunch of excited monkeys.

The beauty of her comment is that folks like the actor that played the leader in "Braveheart" and an actor in one of those doctor shows goes to rehab after they say some non-PC thing. A non PC conservative would be intelligent enough to understand that point but your weak minded mouth breathing liberals only hear a non-PC word and that start going "Ooh! Ooh!" and jumping up and down like a bunch of excited monkeys.

I see faggots.
They're everywhere.
They dont even know they're faggots.

The beauty of her comment is that folks like the actor that played the leader in "Braveheart" and an actor in one of those doctor shows goes to rehab after they say some non-PC thing. A non PC conservative would be intelligent enough to understand that point but your weak minded mouth breathing liberals only hear a non-PC word and that start going "Ooh! Ooh!" and jumping up and down like a bunch of excited monkeys.

Gibson didn't go to rehab for making anti-Semitic remarks. Gibson went to rehab because he was an alcoholic who got pulled over on a DUI.

Understand the difference?

I see faggots.
They're everywhere.
They dont even know they're faggots.
Two can play at this game.

"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."
"Neocons. Walking around like regular people. They don't see reality. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're braindead."

The beauty of her comment is that folks like the actor that played the leader in "Braveheart" and an actor in one of those doctor shows goes to rehab after they say some non-PC thing. A non PC conservative would be intelligent enough to understand that point but your weak minded mouth breathing liberals only hear a non-PC word and that start going "Ooh! Ooh!" and jumping up and down like a bunch of excited monkeys.

Funny, I always seem to hear excited monkey noises from the conservative side whenever someone suggests that perhaps the current administration may have made an error in judgement on some policy or another. They seem to be shrieking "Traitor! Why do you hate America? Traitor!"

Political correctness can and sometimes is overdone. I find it insulting, however, when my opinion that perhaps the United States could conduct itself around the world in a more civilized and less arrogant manner is condemned as hatred for my country and tantamount to treason. It used to be possible to have a rational discussion of policy in this country until the arrival of the Neo-Conservatives in the early 90's. You should not complain if the Left has had to resort to the same tactics just to be heard.

:eek:

Lunatic Goofballs just was awarded my lovely thread. Retroactively, even.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad021.gif

:eek:

Lunatic Goofballs just was awarded my lovely thread. Retroactively, even.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad021.gif

Huh? He gets this thread as his own? By whom? And why? I'm confused... :confused:

(Not that that's something new!)

http://www.casual-gamers.de/cg/images/smilies/mogulaward.gifhttp://www.casual-gamers.de/cg/images/smilies/schaf2.gif

Huh? He gets this thread as his own? By whom? And why? I'm confused... :confused:

(Not that that's something new!)

http://www.casual-gamers.de/cg/images/smilies/mogulaward.gifhttp://www.casual-gamers.de/cg/images/smilies/schaf2.gif

jolt thinks he made the thread as his post was time warped to the top