Coulter at it again

The subject is Ann ...curtis

Here we go again ..curtis it is sooooooooo obvious you are a fanatical fan of Ann and Rush ...it happens every time you defend them to the core by going after the messengers.....look in the mirror curtis and your hatred of Pope John Paul the 2nd.

Drudge is a repressed gay imho and is part of the right wing propaganda noise to shock the media ...Ann is the same...they are dividers...they are the extreme.

They are fair political game they are both involved with politics ...Rush Limbaught went to a very sexual deviant area in the Caribbean with a lots of Viagra at his disposal. He has been divorced 4 times...one of these days one of those ex's will write a tell all book on this deviant...now that bugs you curtis because you are a "fan" fanatical about the person and persons and you feel the need to defend them ...fine defend them but actually debate them and point out how good you think they are instead of always and I do mean always attack the messenger it is an troll tactic.

So can we get on topic and you actually defend these peoples posistions instead of going after the messenger ..MP and I of course have righteous indignation for the persons behaviour and you might have the same for the late great Pope John Paul the 2nd...but we have put in a lot of disclaimers that these people need professional help and repentance...but of course that escapes you.

 

OK, no one on either side of the issues should resort to name calling. It would be great if we (and they) could discuss the issues.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

I'm just sayin'...

 

Hilarious.:laugh:

 

That video was hilarious.


Bottom line, if I have a problem with Ann Coulter calling people names, then I have to have the same problem with Magnetic Poles and Aslan'spal calling people names. And don't give me the "she singled out a group of people" garbage, either. If calling people names is wrong, the it's wrong for everyone.

 

So the guy has great hair!!!!
At least it is not Pink!!!

 

I'm about as politically conservative (although I'm not a neo-con, having been conservative for all my adult and most of my teenage life) as you can get, but here, I fully agree.

Ed

 

... or gone!!!

 

Obviously something escaped me as well.

I want to know what is the difference between what Ann Coulter said (Which I have already agreed was completely uncalled for) and this where you have said this, in addition to classifying another as a "deviant", especially when the subjects are all involved in politics, or this thread would not even be here?

BTW, I don't consider any of this, including yours, "hate speech", but free speech. Thought it was guaranteed under the Constitution and courts, apart from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or such as that.

Libel is another matter entirely, and there are sufficient laws to cover that. If one has, in fact, been libeled, one has recourse.

Ed

 

I got a great idea!

Let's have a "steel cage" match between Al Franken and Ann Coulter- best two out of three falls. We'll get Joe Lieberman be the referree. If he can't do it, we'll get 'Kinky' Friedman or Jesse Ventura.

I'll got a 'sawbuck' on Ann Coulter to win the third and deciding fall. :laugh:

Ed

 

This is the kind of shooting in the foot sort of thing that the Democrats dream of happening all through this campaign. I'm sure they see it as a great sign of wonderful things to come if Ann Coulter is already inserting foot in mouth this early on.

It's not surprising that religious conservatives are also smirking and cheering. They abandoned their faith and values, and Christ, and sold out to politics a long time ago. Their Clinton bashing should show anyone who wants to see that they've set aside the Bible and their faith to seek after secular political power. The fact that they revere idiots and valueless cretins like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh is only full proof of that. With Pat Robertson's recent invite of a Mormon to speak at his university, it won't be long before theology gets sold down the river and these same religious conservatives will be declaring Mormonism to be Christian, too, just because Mit Romney might be the front-running social conservative.

 

With Ann Coulter, one does not have to call her names. As I said back on page 3, She has no relevance, no substance, no morals and no credibility. All you have to do is read what she writes and says to know that she does not display any intellect. Here is a link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html

That is what you would expect from someone who views the despicable Senator McCarthy as a hero..........

Regards Bro. Curtis, hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR

 

I have to agree with BIR. People like the President, people running for President, and other politicians can affect our lives because they govern us. Language like this out of their mouths could be cause for alarm.

We spend thread after thread on people like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Sean Penn, etc, etc, etc. They are all either in Hollywood or radio commentators, entertainers only. The only power they have is the attention we pay to them. Turn off their programs, stop listening to them, ignore them, and they go away. They have no power other than what we give them. They are quite irrelevant.

 

And if I felt so inclined, I could debate this. Articulated points. The fact is, she has a right to say this, guaranteed by the constitution that the original poster keeps yelling about. If Ann Coulter shouldn't call people names, then nobody should.

Self-piety is a trait I find deplorable. And this, "I can do it but they can't" mentality is just as bad.

 

Which were the "articulated points?" Are you referring to anything she said on that link I provided, or are you referring to those pathetic books she writes (or has ghost-written for her)? I have most of them, so if you are claiming that she is articulate, please direct me to where she made a point that fits your description.

I don't have a problem with this.

Isn't that the argument that is made from the apologists for Ann Coulter as well?

Regards,
BiR

 

I would talk about Coulter but you have to go into rehab if you talk about transgenderbenders...why does "she" have an adam's apple?

 

I was talking about you. If so inclined, I would debate your points, because you articulated them. I think you misread me, probably my fault.

Nor do I.

You'll have to ask one of her apologists. I say, if it's OK for MP to call Limbaugh a pig, then what Coulter said is OK. If it's not OK for Ann, the it's not OK for MP. I'm on the fence. I could be talked into either viewpoint, but consistency is important. Just because Ann is rich & famous doesn't mean the constitution doesn't apply to her.

Thanx, to you, as well.

 

I always have time for you, Bro. Curtis.

A sincere wish for God's Blessings on you and your family,
BiR (back home in Tampa at the moment)

 

Liberals don't like it when an avowed conservative uses invective similar to theirs against them.

Kinda funny, really.:laugh:

 

I enjoy most of Ann Coulter's political commentaries and I plan to continue reading them. I don't agree with her - nor anyone else - all the time but find that she usually gets it correct to the great disdain of those of opposite political views. She remains a voice for conservative political viewpoints.

Since there's no evidence to the contrary I must believe that the descriptor used by Ann Coulter does not literally fit John Edwards and shouldn't have been used. She's free to say what she wants but, in this case, I don't believe it was a good choice of word. John Edwards has, however, stated that he didn't believe homosexual conduct was sinful and, perhaps, that support for such conduct was a factor in Ann Coulter's choice of words. Perhaps she views his indirect support of homosexual behavior as worthy of the descriptor.[SIZE=+1]

The word used by Coulter has been deemed offensive by homosexuals and, in turn, offends those who've ruled it is improper for the rest of us to use the word or to express any unkind feelings at all about that behavior. The new term "gay" was invented to be more palatable. The goal is to validate the behavior by outlawing any condemnation of it. The only acceptable words are words that normalize, complement or, at the very least, empathize. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
A much bigger fuss will be made over this than of calling someone a liar, cheater, idiot, bigot, racist, warmonger, etc. all of which attack a person's character justly or unjustly depending upon the truth.

There's no real desire for an apology from Ann Coulter because, if fact, the opposition is probably grateful for the "attack" and is hopeful it can maximize condemnation by the public through wide coverage in the media. There's a desire to elevate her comment to the status of a "hate crime" against all humanity.

Aside from Ann Coulter's comment and as for the word itself, it is an expression of disgust with the behavior and, to that end, it's a good word - a strong word like many others - that shouldn't be banned from usage by the political speech police or the supporters of the behavior. It's a derogatory word for a homosexual or effeminate man. The fact that a non-derogatory word is desired for such conduct is an indication that we're no longer able to describe something for what it is. Homosexual conduct merits a derogatory descriptor.
[/SIZE]