TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Are you implying Coulter has a grossly large and/or overly loose vagina? :shifty:
Ann Coulter reveals Hate at the heart of Conservatives
- Thread starter JohnnyBz00LS
- Start date
Are you implying Coulter has a grossly large and/or overly loose vagina? :shifty:
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
No. I'm sure she is just like a 18 year old gymnast.
Oh...So you think every conservative in the country was at the conference. And since you apparently believe most of the conservatives at the conference laughed at Coulter's f-word comment that means the majority of the nations conservatives condone what Coulter said. Thus, Coulter speaks for the "majority" of conservatives.
Gee, that makes a lot of sense--Thanks for clarifying that.
Couldn't the majority of conservatives have been applauding because they "hate" Edwards? Or because of the "pop culture" reference (Grey's Anatomy, F-bomb; which is what makes Family Guy funny)? Or because it was "anti-PC" and would make the media cringe (at least in there minds; remember us conservatives have a distrust of the mainstream media and love to tweek 'em)? My point is there is no way for u to logically connect Coulter's comment (and it's response) to a "hate" of homosexuals by even the majority of the audience in that room, let alone the majority of conservatives. U would first have to prove the motivating sentement was hate, and then prove it was directed toward homosexuals. It was pretty obvious that she was droppin' the f-bomb in a tongue-in-cheek manner, which suggests that the sentiment was humor and not hate. It hardly compares to KKK rallies.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Very good point, and it illustrates something. Notice how quickly and readily AhmadineJohnny is able to connect hate to any critical comment made by Coulter or someone like her. He simply assumes that everyone else is like him. That's called projecting.
John Edwards Hypocrisy: Ann Coulter vs. Anti-Christian Bloggers
Posted by Justin McCarthy on March 5, 2007 - 17:50.
The Associated Press is reporting Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards responded harshly Ann Coulter’s ":q:q:qgot" remark. At an appearance in Berkeley, California, he said:
"I think it is important that we not reward hateful, selfish, childish behavior with attention. I also believe it is important for all of us to speak out against language of this kind; it is the place where hatred gets its foothold, and we can’t stand silently by and allow this kind of language to be used."
If only the former Senator would follow his own advice. Didn’t he reward "hateful, selfish, childish behavior" by hiring two harsh feminist, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian bloggers and then refusing to fire them? On the February 16 edition of CNN’s The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer asked him about his staffers (unlike the evasive anchors Meredith Vieira at NBC, Terry Moran at ABC, and Bob Schieffer at CBS). Edwards passively said that he "rejected" their statements and he "strongly disagrees with them." He stated that their resignations were "a personal decision" and dismissed the criticism as coming "particularly from people on the far right of the political spectrum." The transcript from The Situation Room is below.
BLITZER: "There, there was a little bit of an uproar recently when you hired two bloggers who had written critical comments of the Catholic Church before they started to work for you. Since then, they've both resigned from your campaign. Let me read to you one of those things that Amanda Marcotte wrote. ‘The Catholic Church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’ What do you make of this, this controversy? And what, what does it say about your campaign?"
EDWARDS: "Well, I said, as soon as I found out about this, that a number of the statements that had been made by these women before they ever came to work for my campaign were statements that I rejected, strongly disagreed with. I spoke to them directly and personally. They both assured me they had no intention of denigrating anyone's faith. They apologized. They said they would not do it in the future while working for me. I took them at their word and I stood by them because of that. They made a personal decision, because of a lot of the heat they were coming under, the fire they were coming under, particularly from people on the far right of the political spectrum, that this was not something they wanted to go through. Speaking for me, I took them at their word when they said they did not mean to denigrate anyone's faith."
BECK: "So you learned a lesson from this. What is that lesson, Senator?
EDWARDS: "Well, the lesson -- you learn lessons in everything you do in life, including in political campaigns, Wolf. And the lesson is we're entering a new brave world with the net and with the blogosphere. And it's a powerful world. It's a world that's going to have a huge impact and should have a huge impact on the way we do politics in America. Because the Net and the blogosphere is grass roots politics at its best. But candidates can't control what people say. We believe in free speech in this country. And this is democracy. People have a right to express their opinions."
What a hypocrite. *owned*
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh...So you think every conservative in the country was at the conference. And since you apparently believe most of the conservatives at the conference laughed at Coulter's f-word comment that means the majority of the nations conservatives condone what Coulter said. Thus, Coulter speaks for the "majority" of conservatives.
Gee, that makes a lot of sense--Thanks for clarifying that.
OK, so just the hateful homophobic conservatives were at CPAC. Thanks for clarifying that.
shagdrum said:
The joke wasn't at liberal's expense, it was at homosexual's expense. How would Jews feel if she used a derogatory term like Kike or something more directed at them? It was in extremely poor taste and was a backhanded insult towards gays, who were totally innocent in this whole scenario.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/05/coulter.ads/index.html
Companies to pull ads from Coulter's Web site
POSTED: 9:19 p.m. EST, March 5, 2007
From Peter Hamby
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At least three major companies want their ads pulled from Ann Coulter's Web site, following customer complaints about the right-wing commentator referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a ":q:q:qgot."
Verizon, Sallie Mae and Georgia-based NetBank each said they didn't know their ads were on AnnCoulter.com until they received the complaints.
A diarist at the liberal blog DailyKos.com posted contact information for dozens of companies with ads on Coulter's site after the commentator made her remarks about Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Friday. (Full story)
"One of the best ways to communicate one's distaste for Coulter's repeated incidents of hate speech is to respectfully but firmly let her advertisers know you are deeply troubled by their indirect support of bigotry through their advertising on Coulter's Web site," the blogger VolvoDrivingLiberal wrote on DailyKos.com on Sunday.
Verizon, Sallie Mae and NetBank said the ads were put on a variety of sites by a third party company. In many cases, advertisers do not know which sites feature their ads.
"Per our policy, the networked Web site ad purchases are supposed to be stripped of certain kinds of Web sites," said a Verizon spokesperson. "This one could be considered an extreme political Web site, should be off the list, and now it is off the list."
A Sallie Mae spokesperson said the company was only testing an online advertising agency, and that their ads were not meant to show up on Coulter's site. The company said they planned to pull ads from other political and religious Web sites as well.
A spokesperson for NetBank said Coulter's page "is not the kind of site we want to be on."
Coulter did not respond to CNN's request for comment.
Ann's trip towards obscurity is nearly complete.
So, you're saying it's bad to equate "F*gots" to successful, multimillionaire, trial attorneys? I think you might have made your first valid point to date.
The reality is, the joke has nothing to do with homosexuals. I've heard her discuss it on t.v. - the term is a school yard taunt. It has nothing to do with sexuality. If you don't think the joke is funny, that's perfectly fine. But it was not offensive to anyone who is honest.
To equate the term to those other terms is foolish and unrelated. You're grasping at straws, pick examples that are more outrageous and offensive to add weight to your silly frenzied hysteria because the actual comment she made doesn't warrant your response.
She doesn't make a living by virtue of her web page, the story is irrelevant.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Bill Maher: I didn't mean it that way, you conservatives are twisting my words!!! That's not me!!!