Muslims: 'we Do That On First Dates'

[shagdrum]

MUSLIMS: 'WE DO THAT ON FIRST DATES'

ithout any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators' Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)

If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.

The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch:

Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!

So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...

Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.

Further up the torture ladder -- from Guantanamo, not Monty Python -- comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual's personal space."

If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver -- the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn't involve being forced to watch "The View" -- CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.

I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure's terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."

Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.

Thousands of our troops are waterboarded every year as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America -- were liberal consciences shocked.

I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.

As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.

Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care -- including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Only three terrorists -- who could have been shot -- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.

Normal human beings -- especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy -- can't read the interrogation memos without laughing.

At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.

But The New York Times is populated with people who can't believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER

 

[Calabrio]

You can't get into an argument on this subject and allow someone to frame this as being about or in defense of "torture." Once the argument is inaccurately framed like that, the argument is effectively over. And far too often, too many of us, fall into that trap, and accept the discussion on those misleading, inaccurate, and at times, dishonest, grounds.

And even then, it's a mistake to allow the conversation to focus on "water boarding" (as it's done by our CIA.)
Water boarding is the single most polarizing of the examples, but it was done so infrequently, to so few people, it's misleading to focus on that subject as though it were the norm.

Fact is, when the press, the progressive left, and the international media are accusing us of torture, they aren't just talking about 'waterboarding' three of the most vile creatures on earth, but they are really talking about putting a caterpillar in a terrorists prison cell. A harmless caterpillar.

Which then leads me to believe, noting the absurdity of that, these attacks and criticisms aren't on principle but simply attacks on the U.S., the intelligence agencies, and the past administration.

 

[foxpaws]

Why wouldn't I respond to it or address the gross inaccuracies and problems with the logic contained within it? Should you dismiss an Ann Coulter article because "it's humor?" You might suggest other reasons to dismiss it, but because she interjects humor into the piece, does that simply mean that you just need to learn to laugh at yourself?

Cal - this article is a good example of Ann's 'humor'. I wonder since she often injects slurs against gays in things she writes, and in her 'live' comments, if she was rejected by a gay man. Did she have to hear those awful, torturous words, that he was 'just not that into her'?

 

[Calabrio]

THREAD HIJACK.

Cal - this article is a good example of Ann's 'humor'.

Yes it is. She is definitely "red meat" for conservatives, needling and interjecting humor while making a very sound, thoughtful argument. Often times, the caustic humor detracts from the value of the argument. Columns like these, because of the polarizing nature, are rarely effective at persuading someone and better at reinforcing a perception or view.

I wonder since she often injects slurs against gays in things she writes, and in her 'live' comments,

No, she "doesn't often inject slurs" against any group in what she writes.
You're referencing a speech speech she made:
YouTube - Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a :q:q:qgot
In proper context:
The big story of the week had to do with one of the stars of the TV show Gray's Anatomy having called one of his co-starts a ":q:q:qgot" and in order to keep his job on the show he had to attend sensitivity re-education camp.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2821901&page=1

if she was rejected by a gay man. Did she have to hear those awful, torturous words, that he was 'just not that into her'?

I don't know if that was supposed to be funny but it's a pretty foolish.
She's not hostile towards homosexuals, the :q:q:qg0t joke wasn't critical of homosexuals, it was a quick aside referencing John Edwards effeminate vanity and a popular story in the news at the time. I've provided links to both the speech and the news story she was referencing to.

 

[foxpaws]

THREAD HIJACK.

Yes it is. She is definitely "red meat" for conservatives, needling and interjecting humor while making a very sound, thoughtful argument. Often times, the caustic humor detracts from the value of the argument. Columns like these, because of the polarizing nature, are rarely effective at persuading someone and better at reinforcing a perception or view.So, why preach to the choir, and with such polarizing sentiment? When people who are ‘on the fence’ read her material, it often chases them away.

Isn’t that what a majority of right wing pundits do? They bolster the opinions/ideas that the right embraces, but often with polarizing personal judgments. Should the right be looking for someone who can speak to a larger portion of America and marginalize the Rush Limbaughs, the Coutlers, the Hannitys? Or should they continue to bolster these representatives of the conservative side of the spectrum?

No, she "doesn't often inject slurs" against any group in what she writes.

In the article above she says… “The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?” Why inject ‘gay’ at all? This sentence doesn’t even make much sense. I am assuming (and why I added the previous sentence) that she is referring to Arabs being worried that Americans, who are suffering from ’gay’, that is why our interrogation techniques are so lame (I am searching for a connection here – this is probably the wrong one) might give them pills to make them gay as well? What does this have to do with anything, other than an opportunity to besmirch gays? Why is it in there? I guess she could be ‘reinforcing a perception or view’ as you stated Cal. Perhaps by stating a negative viewpoint of gays it will continue to endear her to the right? I really can’t imagine why that reference is in there at all – maybe you know Cal.

She's not hostile towards homosexuals, the f@ggot joke wasn't critical of homosexuals, it was a quick aside referencing John Edwards effeminate vanity and a popular story in the news at the time. I've provided links to both the speech and the news story she was referencing to.

Oh, the whole f@ggot issue with Edwards – she was associating Edwards with gay men – that was the ‘joke.’ The word ‘f@ggot’ and how she referenced it was in regards to Isaiah Washington’s then recent admittance into rehab for using the same word.

However, marginalizing why she used the word ‘f@ggot’ doesn’t get around the fact that she was trying to peg Edwards as a gay man, or at least put him on the same social level as a gay man (which in that audience would certainly be ‘below’ their level). Why? To get a laugh? It falls back to once again she was in front of an audience made up of basically right wing supporters and she knew that by using the word "f@ggot" it would either demonize Edwards (if he was indeed gay) or by using the epitaph against Edwards she was reducing him to the social pariah status of a gay man.

It makes you wonder if she would use the word n!gger when addressing the right audience – to get a laugh…

 

[fossten]

Isn’t that what a majority of right wing pundits do? They bolster the opinions/ideas that the right embraces, but often with polarizing personal judgments. Should the right be looking for someone who can speak to a larger portion of America and marginalize the Rush Limbaughs, the Coutlers, the Hannitys? Or should they continue to bolster these representatives of the conservative side of the spectrum?

Tsk tsk, fox. You're projecting. This is the exact mirror image of what every lefty pundit does, starting with Carville and ending with YOU. But thanks for displaying your gross ignorance of 'the right' for the rest of us.

Oh, the whole f@ggot issue with Edwards – she was associating Edwards with gay men – that was the ‘joke.’ The word ‘f@ggot’ and how she referenced it was in regards to Isaiah Washington’s then recent admittance into rehab for using the same word.

However, marginalizing why she used the word ‘f@ggot’ doesn’t get around the fact that she was trying to peg Edwards as a gay man, or at least put him on the same social level as a gay man (which in that audience would certainly be ‘below’ their level). Why? To get a laugh? It falls back to once again she was in front of an audience made up of basically right wing supporters and she knew that by using the word "f@ggot" it would either demonize Edwards (if he was indeed gay) or by using the epitaph against Edwards she was reducing him to the social pariah status of a gay man.

It makes you wonder if she would use the word n!gger when addressing the right audience – to get a laugh…

Tsk tsk, there you go again, trying to parlay one issue into another one. First she's a gay basher (you took the whole thing out of context) and now she's a racist?

Talk about a non sequitur. Either you supply actual evidence that she's a racist or you back off and acknowledge that you just smeared her with a false implication.

You FAIL.

It is funny how vehemently you defend The Breck Girl, though.

 

[foxpaws]

Tsk tsk, fox. You're projecting. This is the exact mirror image of what every lefty pundit does, starting with Carville and ending with YOU. But thanks for displaying your gross ignorance of 'the right' for the rest of us.

Want to be a bit more clear about this Foss? I really don't understand and therefore am grossly ignorant of what the heck you mean here. I doubt if most people view Carville as polarizing as Limbaugh - but I could be wrong.

Tsk tsk, there you go again, trying to parlay one issue into another one. First she's a gay basher (you took the whole thing out of context) and now she's a racist?

I have no idea of how she personally views gays, but in her public persona she appears to use the word and the preconceived notions of gay men to disparage others. She certainly never uses it in a 'positive' light, and often drags it out to bolster her status among her right wing audience.

Talk about a non sequitur. Either you supply actual evidence that she's a racist or you back off and acknowledge that you just smeared her with a false implication.

Many people view the words as similar in the effect they have on demonizing a group of people. She obviously was comfortable using the 'f' word, I guess to just get a laugh. Why else did she use it? You might assume then she would be equally as comfortable using the 'n' word, just to get a laugh.

I don't think she is homophobic and I am certain she isn't racist. But, she obviously used the 'f' word. It is a word that almost no one uses, because of the negative aspects of the word, especially in front of a large group of people while being filmed. Just as the 'n' word is not used. Where do you think that Ms Coulter would draw that line? Foss, you seem to think she would draw it at the 'n' word, but isn't her use of the 'f' word enough to make one 'wonder' if she would use other prejudicial type words, in her quest to get another laugh?

It is funny how vehemently you defend The Breck Girl, though.

I didn't defend him Foss. In fact in other places I have stated that I think 'he usually deserves the jokes that are told at his expense'.

You may have missed the whole point here Foss. I wouldn't call you a 'f@ggot', even in a humorous way, it is insulting to you and to gays.

 

[fossten]

Want to be a bit more clear about this Foss? I really don't understand and therefore am grossly ignorant of what the heck you mean here. I doubt if most people view Carville as polarizing as Limbaugh - but I could be wrong.

Yep. You're wrong. As usual. You are either willfully or ignorantly engaging in the groupthink that is so typical of the left. You might want to try researching 'the right' before you so blithely and nonchalantly state conclusions. Any time you say "the majority of" anything, you're generalizing and asking to be picked apart. You can't back up that statement anyway.

I have no idea of how she personally views gays, but in her public persona she appears to use the word and the preconceived notions of gay men to disparage others. She certainly never uses it in a 'positive' light, and often drags it out to bolster her status among her right wing audience.

You tend to draw more elixir out of the statements by people like Coulter than you do out of the statements by people like Carville, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Markos Moulitsas.

Many people view the words as similar in the effect they have on demonizing a group of people. She obviously was comfortable using the 'f' word, I guess to just get a laugh. Why else did she use it? You might assume then she would be equally as comfortable using the 'n' word, just to get a laugh.

The absence of evidence to answer your rhetorical question does not equal evidence of absence.

I don't think she is homophobic and I am certain she isn't racist. But, she obviously used the 'f' word. It is a word that almost no one uses, because of the negative aspects of the word, especially in front of a large group of people while being filmed. Just as the 'n' word is not used. Where do you think that Ms Coulter would draw that line? Foss, you seem to think she would draw it at the 'n' word, but isn't her use of the 'f' word enough to make one 'wonder' if she would use other prejudicial type words, in her quest to get another laugh?

So first you imply she's a gay basher and a racist, and now you're backpedaling. Well done. And you try to get me to engage in hypotheticals about what Ann would or would not do, using rhetorical questions to lay the foundation for establishing that the absence of a satisfactory answer by me proves that she's a homophobe and a racist. Sorry, not interested. You may draw whatever conclusion you wish, but when you use her statements out of context, you'll get called out. Do yourself a favor and read Cal's link before you comment again. Clearly you're ignorant of the context of that comment.

I didn't defend him Foss. In fact in other places I have stated that I think 'he usually deserves the jokes that are told at his expense'.

Then why are you objecting to her doing just that? Once again, doubletalk from you.

You may have missed the whole point here Foss. I wouldn't call you a 'f@ggot', even in a humorous way, it is insulting to you and to gays.

Ahem. She didn't call him that. But keep dishonestly trying to perpetuate the falsehood, it's what you do best.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Wow. Just wow.

I bet for about an hour after this this section was made, it about issues instead of opinions.

I bet it was good for about an hour.

 

[Black87LSC]

Wow. Just wow.

I bet at, for about an hour after this this section was made, it about issues instead of opinions.

I bet it was good for about an hour.

Wow, wiggles doesnt know how to speak english.

 

[fossten]

Wow, wiggles doesnt know how to speak english.

Leave him alone. English is his second language. Be tolerant of those less fortunate.

 

[foxpaws]

Yep. You're wrong. As usual. You are either willfully or ignorantly engaging in the groupthink that is so typical of the left. You might want to try researching 'the right' before you so blithely and nonchalantly state conclusions. Any time you say "the majority of" anything, you're generalizing and asking to be picked apart. You can't back up that statement anyway.

Wow - still worried about the whole groupthink aren't we Foss - the more you bring it up...

Once again, I use 'the right' similarly to your use of 'the left'. Or maybe you use 'the left' as a generalization that is 'asking to be picked apart'.

And can you back up your statement "This is the exact mirror image of what every lefty pundit does, starting with Carville and ending with YOU?" That is what my 'statement' refers to. I think I could back up Carville vs Limbaugh - just on the basis almost no one knows who Carville is outside of people who are pretty 'political'. But, most people know who Rush is. A poll given to people stating 'Do you think James Carville or Rush Limbaugh is more polarizing?' just on 'exposure' alone, the answer most likely would be 'Limbaugh'.

You tend to draw more elixir out of the statements by people like Coulter than you do out of the statements by people like Carville, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Markos Moulitsas.

Nope, I never post anything by any of those people, and won't, except perhaps Carville. Look at what I post - I wouldn't post anything by Moore, Franken, Sharpton or the others - and certainly not in the hyperbole they present it in. So, I am not tasked with trying to defend their word usage.

The absence of evidence to answer your rhetorical question does not equal evidence of absence.

I can hypothesize, I haven't notice a hypothetical police force here that doesn't allow one to wonder 'if'?

So first you imply she's a gay basher and a racist, and now you're backpedaling. Well done. And you try to get me to engage in hypotheticals about what Ann would or would not do, using rhetorical questions to lay the foundation for establishing that the absence of a satisfactory answer by me proves that she's a homophobe and a racist. Sorry, not interested. You may draw whatever conclusion you wish, but when you use her statements out of context, you'll get called out. Do yourself a favor and read Cal's link before you comment again. Clearly you're ignorant of the context of that comment.

I never implied she was a gay basher or a racist - what I did do was claim that she would do anything to align herself with her audience, and would stoop to using the 'f' word to garner laughs. And by using the word f@ggot, she obviously doesn't care that she is continuing and reinforcing a very hateful stereotype.

Then why are you objecting to her doing just that? Once again, doubletalk from you.

I am objecting to her using 'gay' and f@ggot as a reason to get laughs at the expense of stereotyping gays. She could have laughed at Edwards' hair, snickered about his mistress, chuckled over his $300 hair cuts. Those jokes don't require smearing a whole group of people who really have nothing to do with John Edwards.

Ahem. She didn't call him that. But keep dishonestly trying to perpetuate the falsehood, it's what you do best.

From the video, quoting Ann Coulter...

I was going to have another couple of comments on the other presidential candidate, John Edwards, but, it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word f@ggot, so I'm kind of at an impasse, since I can't really talk about Edwards, so I just will conclude.....​

So, she didn't call him that? I was going to talk about you Foss, but since I would have to go into rehab if I use the words 'ignorant slug' I am at an impasse... I can't really talk about you, so, I'll just conclude by taking your questions...

Hummmm.... I guess I didn't just call you an ignorant slug, according to your understanding of the English language Foss.

Oh, Mr Wiggles - far, far less than an hour...

 

[hrmwrm]

Hummmm.... I guess I didn't just call you an ignorant slug, according to your understanding of the English language Foss.

leave him alone. english is his second language. be tolerant of those less fortunate.

 

[hrmwrm]

2

 

[hrmwrm]

3

 

[hrmwrm]

apparently, quad post. slow site tonight. i waited about 5 minutes between clicks.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Wow, wiggles doesnt know how to speak english.

No, i just dont read over what i post. Not like the :q:q:q:q matters anyway. Nobody gives a :q:q:q:q about anyones opinion

But i do think your metamucil is getting warm, get back to it and stop being a grammar nazi, huh?

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Leave him alone. English is his second language. Be tolerant of those less fortunate.

NICE POTSHOT FOSSS HARHAARHAHRHAHRAHAHRHARR YOU SO FUNNI

 

[Black87LSC]

No, i just dont read over what i post. Not like the :q:q:q:q matters anyway. Nobody gives a :q:q:q:q about anyones opinion

But i do think your metamucil is getting warm, get back to it and stop being a grammar nazi, huh?

It does matter if your post doesnt actually convey a thought. I dont usually make a big deal unless I can't even insert words anywhere to pretend I know what you're trying to say.

 

[shagdrum]

No, i just dont read over what i post. Not like the :q:q:q:q matters anyway. Nobody gives a :q:q:q:q about anyones opinion

So you clearly don't take the time to craft a thoughtful post. I would imagine that also applies to your reading and consideration of other posts (which others do take a lot of time and care to craft). Combine that with your habitual trollish and harassing behavior on this forum and it would seem that, at best, you only look for something in someone else's post to manipulate and harass them with.

So, the question should be asked; are you only concerned with frustrating debate on this forum and harassing people who you disagree with or do you actually have any interest in an honest debate?

Also, lose all the cursing. It only detracts from your post and makes you look immature.

 

[Icedphoenix]

I think yall have gotten off topic. What i took from that article is that a whole lot of mess, which I will agree is a total mess came from stuff that I know I was subjected to more in basic training. As far as I'm concerned if it saves one human life then i say start breaking fingers, toes, ribs, necks, whatever saves lives and don't kill them. They deserve no less if they are involved in killing women, children, and civilians, and that is coming from a die hard democrat.

I do not post often here as I don't get on often enough to have a good debate with yall but couldn't leave that alone sorry spent a year over there and cant stand soft spots for people involved in those groups.:soapbox:

 

[fossten]

I never implied she was a gay basher or a racist - what I did do was claim that she would do anything to align herself with her audience, and would stoop to using the 'f' word to garner laughs. And by using the word f@ggot, she obviously doesn't care that she is continuing and reinforcing a very hateful stereotype.

No, you implied that she was a gay basher and a racist. And you just did it again. See the bolded phrase.

I am objecting to her using 'gay' and f@ggot as a reason to get laughs at the expense of stereotyping gays. She could have laughed at Edwards' hair, snickered about his mistress, chuckled over his $300 hair cuts. Those jokes don't require smearing a whole group of people who really have nothing to do with John Edwards.


From the video, quoting Ann Coulter...

I was going to have another couple of comments on the other presidential candidate, John Edwards, but, it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word f@ggot, so I'm kind of at an impasse, since I can't really talk about Edwards, so I just will conclude.....​

So, she didn't call him that? I was going to talk about you Foss, but since I would have to go into rehab if I use the words 'ignorant slug' I am at an impasse... I can't really talk about you, so, I'll just conclude by taking your questions...

Hummmm.... I guess I didn't just call you an ignorant slug, according to your understanding of the English language Foss.

So if I call you a deliberately obtuse jackass because you didn't bother to research the context of her comment, would I have to go into rehab?

Also, it's good to see you allying yourself with Wiggles. He needs somebody who is his intellectual equal to champion him.

 

[foxpaws]

No, you implied that she was a gay basher and a racist. And you just did it again. See the bolded phrase.
Bolded phrase...she obviously doesn't care that she is continuing and reinforcing a very hateful stereotype.

So, she isn't continuing and reinforcing a stereotype Foss? She doesn't have to 'bash' someone to uphold the stereotype.

So if I call you a deliberately obtuse jackass because you didn't bother to research the context of her comment, would I have to go into rehab?

I know why she used it, she was attempting to get a cheap laugh labeling Edwards with the word 'f@ggot' by relating a current event (Isaiah Washington's comment and subsequent rehab). Well actually it wasn't even a current event - it was over 5 weeks old by the time Ann added it to her repertoire. Don't you think a different event would have been more 'timely' Or maybe foss, you know the reason she used an 'event' that was over a month old.

Foss - you don't have to call me a jackass, or deliberately obtuse, because I did bother to research the context of her comment, you don't have to check into rehab - you are safe... Check back - my post - #5 - paragraph 3... Heck, I went as far to check out the dates, the date the 'event' of Isiah's rehab and the date of Coulter's speach.

So, did Coulter call Edwards a f@ggot, Foss?

Well... let's try this again,

I was going to talk about you Foss, but since I would have to go into rehab if I use the words 'boorish bovine' I am at an impasse... I can't really talk about you, so, I'll just conclude by taking your questions...

So, once again... I didn't just call you a stupid cow, according to your understanding of the English language Foss?

Also, it's good to see you allying yourself with Wiggles. He needs somebody who is his intellectual equal to champion him.

I try to say 'hi' and be nice to new people who actually wander over to this dark hole

 

[shagdrum]

So, she isn't continuing and reinforcing a stereotype Foss? She doesn't have to 'bash' someone to uphold the stereotype.

If one incident proves that she is perpetuating a stereotype (as you seem to be implying) then you would have to agree that Jon Stewart, Bill Mahr, etc. are all perpetuating stereotypes and not simply being humorous because they continually attack republicans and conservatives.

Also, where is the false premise that is accepted as truth in her humor that would indicate her perpetuating a stereotype? f@ggot is simply a label, not a premise. It may be a derogatory label to some (though not as much so as you seem to think, IMO. It is not analogous to the "N-word"), but it is simply a label, not a premise. You need a premise to be perpetuating a stereotype. Otherwise, at best, you can only say that she is perpetuating a label for a male homosexual.

I know why she used it, she was attempting to get a cheap laugh labeling Edwards with the word 'f@ggot' by relating a current event (Isaiah Washington's comment and subsequent rehab).

So...she was attempting to get a cheap laugh and perpetuating a stereotype?!

Again, where is the false premise? Also, can you show a pattern of anti-gay stereotype perpetuating humor to show that she is doing more then simply making a joke? Or are you simply lowering the goalposts to be able to claim that there is some sort of bigotry in her comments when there is none? I can demonstrate that pattern for Stewart and Mahr.

There is a degree of subjectivity to humor, but what you are trying to do is to create a mountain out of a molehill here. There is nothing there and you are trying to manufacture something. more misdirection and mischaracterization from the expert.

We all know how much you love to bash Coulter and the dishonest and deceptive depths you will go to in achieving that.

I was going to talk about you Foss, but since I would have to go into rehab if I use the words 'boorish bovine' I am at an impasse...

You just did call him a boorish bovine. But you can still pretend that you are above it all. This passive aggressive shtick is getting real old. You lean on that crutch way too often. "Faux" really does describe you to a tee, it seems. "Two-faced" would be rather accurate as well.

 

[foxpaws]

If one incident proves that she is perpetuating a stereotype (as you seem to be implying) then you would have to agree that Jon Stewart, Bill Mahr, etc. are all perpetuating stereotypes and not simply being humorous because they continually attack republicans and conservatives.

It came up because she does use the idea of ‘gay’ as a stereotype – for some reason she used it in this article posted at the top of this thread. It sort of raises a red flag with me – she pushes the stereotype a lot.

Again, where is the false premise? Also, can you show a pattern of anti-gay stereotype perpetuating humor to show that she is doing more then simply making a joke? Or are you simply lowering the goalposts to be able to claim that there is some sort of bigotry in her comments when there is none? I can demonstrate that pattern for Stewart and Mahr.

Bill Clinton was 'gay'…
She thinks Bill Clinton is at least a little bit gay. Her evidence? Well, all those sexual relations he's had with women, of course. "I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality," Coulter explained.

All Gore is a ‘f@g’
In an appearance on "Hardball" Ann Coulter defended her claim that Bill Clinton is gay and went on to declare Al Gore "a total f@g."
Although later she said that was just a joke.

In response to a question from a young man with a lisp at IU…
One of the main reasons Coulter's appearance has drawn such controversy is because of her comments to the audience. When a student asked if Coulter supported a dictatorship, she responded with a jab at the way he talked, calling him "gay boy."

There are more…

You know, at first I sort of had to laugh – Bill Clinton – gay? That is just so off base it had to be a joke, but she defended it, so I started to watch for this when it came to her ‘public persona.’ I still don’t think she is personally anti-gay - I think she uses this as a way to endear her to her target audience. It appears she is willing to continue a hateful stereotype to garner attention and the admiration of her followers. Humor is subjective, but I certainly don’t believe she is laughing ‘with’ gays, but rather ‘at’ them, so she fits in with the 'guys' at the table...

Ask some of your gay friends how they feel when they are called a f@ggot – I think you’ll then understand why it is such a hateful word. And heck, look at all the internet software blocks that word, like the one here...

And I don’t take offense when Ann calls Democrats everything from satan worshipers to communists. But, when she uses a sexual orientation slur (which is the same as an ethnic slur), or uses a word as an epitath over and over and over again, against specific individuals – it goes beyond just ‘humor’ to something else.

Oh, you won’t find me trying to justify Mahr’s or Stewart’s slurs against gays.

You just did call him a boorish bovine. But you can still pretend that you are above it all. This passive aggressive shtick is getting real old. You lean on that crutch way too often. "Faux" really does describe you to a tee, it seems. "Two-faced" would be rather accurate as well.

And I know I called Foss a ‘boorish bovine’ heck I called him an 'ignorant slug' as well. He isn't either of those things, but I am trying to prove a point - I am trying to get him to see that Ann called Edwards a f@ggot, using the same words she did.

Foxpaws – faux pas - a slip or blunder in etiquette, manners, or conduct; an embarrassing social blunder or indiscretion. It happens to me all the time… a friend gave me that nickname… But, we talked about that long ago Shag - in a PM - odd you bring it up now - out here... I thought PM's were private...