Busted. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacobs/ann-coulter-on-the-gay-_b_70156.html)

The schadenfreude from this will sustain me for a few days.

best comment in that post

I think a bunch of West Hollywood lesbians should kidnap her, tie her up and gang-ignore her.

Out of curiosity, where did this shrill harpy get her start? All I know is I saw her when channel surfing popping up on the Fox channel, with John "the Ferret" Gibson. She is obviously a shrewd individual, seeing an audience and writing and speaking specifically to it, much the same as Limbaugh has using the radio waves.

Does she have any history of contributing anything significant outside of the current hate-speech she is known for, or has she worked at any time in a field that was not focused on the vilification of any group? It must be difficult to have gone this far through one's life and know that there is so little to show for having been here among us.

It sticks in my crawl to defend someone like Ann Coulter who doesn't need defending.

Do people even hear what this woman says? You hear ONE word and since its not a politically correct word you don't hear anything else.

She got publicity for comparing John Edward's to the stereotypical male homosexual. And in rebuttal she is likened to Hitler, am I the only one that doesn’t see a difference here? Since Hitler wore pants does that mean that everyone who wears pants is like him?

In the latest scandal where she stated that as a Christian she wishes all Jews where Christian. Ok that is the base of what she said but she said Jews where "imperfect Christians". Poor choice of words, I agree, but she wants that type of attention. Look at the idea behind the words, Christianity teaches tolerance but its underlying wish is that all humans be Christians. Extrapolating doesn’t that infer that anyone who is not a Christian is somehow lower or "less perfect" than anyone who is?

In doing what she is doing I think she highlights the hypocrisy of all Religion especially Christianity. At least the radical Islamists tell you up front if you don’t believe what they believe they wish you dead, Christianity sits on the sidelines like the nagging wife, convert or burn in hell, have a nice day, btw Bingo on Friday!!

An interesting viewpoint, though I contest that Coulter has said only "ONE" offensive word. The Hitler comparison was extremely weak, as foolhardy here as when Bush, Cheney, etc toss it out as red meat to their followers.

Where I think your conclusion falls short is Coulter's alleged embarrassment at being caught amidst the gay clientele. Were she trying to highlight some kind of moral point, she'd be better off doing what she could to attract attention, not lying low and dodging cameras. The article paints her as being caught with hand in the cookie jar, not playing emissary from the Right to the benighted souls that political affiliation disdains.

The article is too anecdotal to hang one's hat on. Far more amusing if she'd been caught tongue tangling with one of those Hollywood lesbians (caught in the nookie jar, if you will). But I suspect she'd frame her presence their as casting pearls before swine, not highlighting Christian hypocrasy.

Here's another viewpoint....
The Bible says when a man lies with a man, it's a sin....
I'm pretty sure it doesn't cover a woman laying with a woman, however.....

Women weren't important enough to bother with. Besides, Moses knew how hot that was.

Yeah, it even says in the Bible that you can have sisters as wives.....
I was born in the wrong century.....

:devil

Overheard in the U.N. cafeteria:

Greek Ambassador - "It was the Greeks who invented sex."

Italian Ambassador - "Yes, but we introduced it to women."

Yeah, it even says in the Bible that you can have sisters as wives.....
I was born in the wrong century.....

:devil

Your sister must be hot!

Don't you mean "You're"?

Don't you mean "You're"?

Which would make the sentence "You are sister must be hot", taking away the contraction and using the whole words. Yeah, makes much more sense that way.:rolleyes:


Anyway, the Biblical reference to marrying sisters I believe intended marriage to a pair of sisters; not to your own, which would constitute incest.

Sixee is referencing Jedd's apparent jihad against correct usage of your/you're/yore/eeyore/yodelayheehoo and yo.

Incest wasn't that big of a deal, it seems in the Old Testament...
But yes, I meant marriage to a pair of sisters unrelated to myself....

Jihad!
If I could +rep you again Thor, I would !!!
:D

Incest wasn't that big of a deal, it seems in the Old Testament...
But yes, I meant marriage to a pair of sisters unrelated to myself....

Jihad!
If I could +rep you again Thor, I would !!!
:D

Ah alright that is a whole lot hotter then what it sounded like at first :)

Thormir, that was funny :p

Shut up you gimp.

Your sister must be hot!

Pwned!

Shut up you gimp.

Love you too baby!

Actually (and I could be entirely wrong) I believe in the original Hebrew script incest was pretty taboo and against the rules but was worked out of the Bible back when Kings and Queens married siblings to keep royalty in their families.

Actually (and I could be entirely wrong) I believe in the original Hebrew script incest was pretty taboo and against the rules but was worked out of the Bible back when Kings and Queens married siblings to keep royalty in their families.

And so we explain the equine look to the British royals. j/k Halo! :p

Hang that man!!

Remember Tsarevich Alexei, son of Nicholas Alexei the Czar of Russia prior to the Russian Revolution? It is today predicted that the hemophilia that plagued his son, leading to the monk Rasputin spending all that time with the royal family and sparking the flames that led to the revolution were all related to years and years of incest in the family lines keeping the Russian power in the family.

It sticks in my crawl to defend someone like Ann Coulter who doesn't need defending.

Do people even hear what this woman says? You hear ONE word and since its not a politically correct word you don't hear anything else.

She got publicity for comparing John Edward's to the stereotypical male homosexual. And in rebuttal she is likened to Hitler, am I the only one that doesn’t see a difference here? Since Hitler wore pants does that mean that everyone who wears pants is like him?

In the latest scandal where she stated that as a Christian she wishes all Jews where Christian. Ok that is the base of what she said but she said Jews where "imperfect Christians". Poor choice of words, I agree, but she wants that type of attention. Look at the idea behind the words, Christianity teaches tolerance but its underlying wish is that all humans be Christians. Extrapolating doesn’t that infer that anyone who is not a Christian is somehow lower or "less perfect" than anyone who is?

In doing what she is doing I think she highlights the hypocrisy of all Religion especially Christianity. At least the radical Islamists tell you up front if you don’t believe what they believe they wish you dead, Christianity sits on the sidelines like the nagging wife, convert or burn in hell, have a nice day, btw Bingo on Friday!!

You'd have a point if she didn't have a history of anti-semitism.

Coulter does the same stuff as rush limbaugh. "Everyone in the entire world is lying to you! Only I will tell you the truth!" Though she throws in a bit more bigotry and alot more crazy. As long as the lunatic fringe of conservatives exist, there will be people out there making money off of reinforcing their ignorance, gullibility, bigotry, and/or hatred. Hell, fox news based an entire fake news network around that idea.

As long as the lunatic fringe of conservatives exist, there will be people out there making money off of reinforcing their ignorance, gullibility, bigotry, and/or hatred. Hell, fox news based an entire fake news network around that idea.

Are you talking about their silly attempt to copy The Daily Show, or about their regular programming? :rolleyes:

If a certain network broadcasts news that is fake, wouldn't it be found out sooner or later, and ratings would drop?

As long as the lunatic fringe of conservatives exist, there will be people out there making money off of reinforcing their ignorance, gullibility, bigotry, and/or hatred.

The same goes for the lunitic fringe of Liberals. Hence moveon.org, Michael Moore, ect, al.

If a certain network broadcasts news that is fake, wouldn't it be found out sooner or later, and ratings would drop?


Sadly no, b/c there are allot of sheep who want to hear that fake news so it doesn't go away.

The same goes for the lunitic fringe of Liberals. Hence moveon.org, Michael Moore, ect, al.Right, because promoting health care for all Americans is exactly the same as promoting bigotry, hatred and ignorance.

So fake news is ok as long as it's for a good enough reason! That explains alot.

Thor, there are some people in this world who think, exactly that.
I for one am not that fond of the Federal Government getting into the healthcare business.
Just ask a veteran how well the government does with healthcare at VA hospitals...
Do you really think it would be so much better if the Feds stepped in?
Replace 1 beaurcracy with another beaurcracy?

Speaking to the "Fake News" side of this thread, does anyone need to be reminded of the CBS News fiasco with the "Fake but Accurate" memos about G.W.B.'s National Guard service?

Thor, there are some people in this world who think, exactly that.Such as...?
I for one am not that fond of the Federal Government getting into the healthcare business.
Just ask a veteran how well the government does with healthcare at VA hospitals...It was mentioned in another thread that some vets here have been quite happy. Actual studies -- rather than anecdotes -- back this impression up. RAND (http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9100/index1.html) found that VA care outstrips outside care across multiple dimensions. The VA's VistA electronic records program was selected by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for an Innovations in American Government Award in 2006.

VA health care isn't perfect (what is?), but is far from the problematic insitution you're painting it as. And compared to the mess that is private healthcare, it's quite a step up.

Let's reiterate your question: Do you really think it's so much better with profit-driven insurance companies stepping in?

Defenitely not.
Insurance companies, like lawyers, have no souls.....
I guess the VA's changed since the few times I visited it, in the early 90's.
I just remember sitting around all day to have a 5 min exam completed.
Good on them for improving the system.
Too bad it came too late for this vet....LOL

Changing the focus back to Coulter, sorry I have not see instances of her being an anti-semitic other than what the media paints her as. I have a problem with the media interpreting anything for me, as the big media as a whole tend to interpret to the left (another topic).

I don't think she says anything all that bigoted she purposely chooses words that inflame the media, after all that is her goal. The media report it and it upsets the sensitive of whatever sect it applies to. But its not what she said that upsets people its how the media spins it. I think she exists to do one thing, give the liberal media someone to point at and say here is was a typical conservative thinks, then site their reporting on her. Otherwise she would be ignored.

Changing the focus back to Coulter, sorry I have not see instances of her being an anti-semitic other than what the media paints her as.

You must not have seen anything by her.

http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2003/11/ann_coulters_an.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-volokh/ann-coulter-on-jews_b_1730.html
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten13oct13,0,1859447.column?coll=la-home-center
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/oct/11/so_anne_coulter_anti_semitic_what_a_shocker
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html
http://patterico.com/2006/06/15/coulter-clinton-was-blown-by-a-jooooooo/

And thats just from page 1 of Google. Theres at least 10 pages more you can research yourself.

Sorry @ work so don't have the time for a real informed discussion but I took the first link you posted the comment that you say is anti-Semitic.


"In addition to having a number of family deaths among them, the Democrats' other big idea – too nuanced for a bumper sticker – is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There's Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised. Even Hillary Clinton claimed to have unearthed some evidence that she was a Jew – along with the long lost evidence that she was a Yankees fan. And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering."


How is this anti-Semitic it says these people have ties to Jewish people thus can be influence by them. Why is pointing out an affiliation anti-Semitic? How is this different than saying this senator's friends are environmentalists therefore I would assume the senator's opinions are favorable toward environmentalists?

Adding this:
Maybe your focus is on the last sentance, that points out a flaw in everyone not just the Jews. Again not sure how this is Anti-Semitic.

Ok I got a few minutes while they crashed the host.

I read those links you posted. If the Jewish people are that sensitive as a whole they need to grow up and live in the real world. By the definition of bigot in those blogs I qualify as a bigot. I never thought of myself as a bigot, I always thought that "Jewish" was a descriptive term to describe a person, not some derogatory word that was meant to offend.

I live in the heartland where Black is a color that happens to be the same of some people's skin, not a political movement. Jewish was a term to describe people with a Jewish decent, we have other names if we wish to offend.

Maybe your focus is on the last sentance, that points out a flaw in everyone not just the Jews. Again not sure how this is Anti-Semitic.

You're serious? Because I can't tell if you're being serious or just trolling.

Maybe its because I don't understand the sentence it makes no sense. If you're "susceptible to pandering" wouldn't that be a bad thing that would cause them to be removed from history? Not the strong force that the Jewish culture is today?

Exactly. She is making untrue blanket statements about the motivations of a whole religious and cultural demographic in order to perpetuate untrue stereotypes.

That is raw bigotry, right there, and that is how she makes her money.

I think the problem is, she uses a style that offends easily, and is unapologetic about it.

She is correct in that it seems that certain candidates learn to morph into whatever the situation calls for.

Remember Hillary's "Southern Accent"? Sure wasn't prevelant when she was running as a Senator for NYC. Seemed to sound like a Southern Belle when she was giving a speech in a southern church, and to a black civil rights group. She was born in Chicago (But spent 3 years in Arkansas!).

Obama has done the same thing, and we know he was raised in Hawaii.

So, so far they are Semi-Sematic candidates with a Mason-Dixon speech impediments....or they are pandering....

She is making untrue blanket statements about the motivations of a whole religious and cultural demographic in order to perpetuate untrue stereotypes.

Is this is your definition of what defines a bigot? It seems to me your definition is predicated on your opinion as to whether the stereotype is true or not.

it seems you are anti-semantic!

I think you hit the nail on the head Sixee as to her point. It's obvious pandering, she points it out and makes fun of it. Yet for making fun of liberals she is labeled a bigot. This just doesn't add up in my book.

Sorry I mistyped Sixee- fixed

It's the double standard of taking literally something meant to be tongue-in-cheek, when you don't like what the person has to say.
But if you agree with the viewpoint, it's just a joke!

I suppose the only real problem I have is the jump from "I don't agree with you" to "you're a bigot for saying that". The latter has nothing to do with an opinion anymore it now about a new "fact" stated. It changes the discussion from the topic to something totally different.

I'm conservative by nature, I notice this a lot with my liberal friends, they have a problem sticking with original topic and refuse to discuss the issue.

Remember Hillary's "Southern Accent"? Sure wasn't prevelant when she was running as a Senator for NYC.Hillary used an accent and adopted a cadence while reciting the Southern lyrics of someone else's hymn. She sucked at it, but -- despite what Drudge, Fox and other righties "reported" -- wasn't just faking an accent to 'fit in.' This is widely known.
I'm conservative by nature, I notice this a lot with my liberal friends, they have a problem sticking with original topic and refuse to discuss the issue.Heh, I notice this with conservative everybodies, from the President (who refuses to discuss a lot of issues) on down.

I'm conservative by nature, I notice this a lot with my liberal friends, they have a problem sticking with original topic and refuse to discuss the issue.

LOL, Welcome to the Ay Ro Boards LOL

This is widely known. Yes, yes it is.

http://www.ifilm.com/profile/breitbart/video/2829104

I don't here no hymn singin.

Because she was reciting. I wouldn't sing it either.

the use of stereotypes in any fashion, especially in a negative light, is pretty disgusting in my opinion and its scary you don't see that.

bigotry
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

the use of stereotypes in any fashion, especially in a negative light, is pretty disgusting in my opinion and its scary you don't see that.

bigotry
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.You're a fucking hypocrite.

http://www.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=97615&postcount=1

Oh snap!

the use of stereotypes in any fashion, especially in a negative light, is pretty disgusting in my opinion and its scary you don't see that.

bigotry
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
So the use of any stereotypes is bigotry. Man I can't keep of with the politically correct crowd. I would hate to live in that world, where you can't use adjectives to describe anyone. Where do you draw the line? Since I can't describe that dark skinned guy as black or man of Jewish faith as a Jew.

Am I the only one that thinks this is bogus?

And as akipt said when you live in a world of intolerance you will become a hypocrite, you can't help it it's human nature.

ignoring that being virginian isn't a religion or that I am a virginian Akipt? No need to look for a logical response after that.

Calling someone Jewish is fine when refering to their religion. Calling someone Jewish with regards to their entire religion being cleansed or that they are cheap or any other stereotype is bigotry. The difference is pretty easy to grasp...

You miss the entire point. Why do I need to make the distinction? Why do I need to tailor my speech to not offend you when you call me a bigot for something that was not ment in a bigoted way, you only took it that way. If I don't mean it in an offensive way why do I need to change the way I speak?

So the use of any stereotypes is bigotry. Man I can't keep of with the politically correct crowd. I would hate to live in that world, where you can't use adjectives to describe anyone. Where do you draw the line? Since I can't describe that dark skinned guy as black or man of Jewish faith as a Jew.


You need to read this: http://gdl.msu.edu/~vanhoose/humor/0003.html

It was written to be funny, but sadly it's where we are headed....

And Kelraz, the term is "thrifty" not "cheap"....

Thanks Sixee I feel enlightened and now I can take ease in talking to my African-American and Jewish* friends.

* - I can use Jewish because it is not on the forbidden words list.

the use of stereotypes in any fashion...is pretty disgusting in my opinion... ignoring that being virginian isn't a religion or that I am a virginian Akipt? No need to look for a logical response after that.I called you on it when you said it before. Of course you and others spun it so I was the racist.

So enlighten me, which statement of yours should we follow?

Thanks Sixee I feel enlightened and now I can take ease in talking to my African-American and Jewish* friends.

* - I can use Jewish because it is not on the forbidden words list.

But only if you feel guilty when you do. Otherwise you are oppressing them....

Exactly. She is making untrue blanket statements about the motivations of a whole religious and cultural demographic in order to perpetuate untrue stereotypes.

That is raw bigotry, right there, and that is how she makes her money.

Perhaps you didn't read Esbat's post. This isn't about saying "My buddy Josh is a Jew". Its about her making "untrue blanket statements about the motivations of a whole religious and cultural demographic in order to perpetuate untrue stereotypes". Thats the bottom line. We weren't accusing Miss Coulter of not being politically correct, we were accusing her of being biggoted ... and there's a huge fucking difference there. If you want to discuss political correctness you can make a different thread on it, this one is about Ann Coulter preaching hate towards homosexuality and getting caught enjoying a night out at a gay resturant. You said you never saw anywhere of her saying something anti-semetic, so I posted half a dozen from a 5 minute search on Google. And now you've gone off on a campaign to end pollitical correctness which is very, very much irrelevant.

I don't know if Coulter is a Racist.. I mean besides hating Muslims and Mexicans.

What I KNOW she is, is a Polemist. She seeks out battles to court attention. If only her Daddy loved her more when she was a little girl, maybe we wouldnt be treated to her unique brand of self aggrandizement. But I digress.

Coulter seeks to divide. To draw lines between Americans. "Us" Vs "Them".

Liberals are "traitors" who hate God and have no morals, Conservatives are the "Good Guys" who Love the baby Jesus and have rock solid American morals! Libs are the enemy and they must be destroyed. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is harmful to the country you love.

The desire is to segregate, not based on skin color, but ideology. To drive the discourse so far away from honest debate and mutual respect where cooperation is possible, but to hatefulness and bitterness and to a place where the political sides in our country no longer talk to each other, or work with each other, but engage in political battle where one side wins and one side loses.
Whats best for the country falls to wayside as the process of government is turned into a tug of war.

No, people like Coulter are more dangerous than racists to our Democracy. They seek to kill the public discourse. They dont want people talking, they want people LISTENING.. to them.

If I don't mean it in an offensive way why do I need to change the way I speak?

If you say something bigoted without intent to offend you're ignorant. Exposure to the world at large will often cure that.

Is this is your definition of what defines a bigot? It seems to me your definition is predicated on your opinion as to whether the stereotype is true or not.

I was pointing out that Coulter was not just using stereotypes, but that they were also untrue.

Stereotyping does not always equal bigotry. Basing your entire outlook on a culture, race or creed based on stereotypes, refusing to acknowledge evidence contrary to them and being hostile towards that group because they are different is bigotry.

Basing your entire outlook on a culture, race or creed based on stereotypes, refusing to acknowledge evidence contrary to them and being hostile towards that group because they are different is bigotry.

That doesn't extent to Political affiliation?

Many times in this board, I have seen Republicans referred to "Redneck, inbred, nascar watching, hill billies."
Isn't that a stereotype?
Arnold Schwartznegger is a Repubilcan. I can't see any of the above statements apply to him.
Just as not all Liberals are "socalistic, pinko, limp-wristed, communists."

Bigotry is hurtful to all.

That doesn't extent to Political affiliation?

Many times in this board, I have seen Republicans referred to "Redneck, inbred, nascar watching, hill billies."
Isn't that a stereotype?
Arnold Schwartznegger is a Repubilcan. I can't see any of the above statements apply to him.
Just as not all Liberals are "socalistic, pinko, limp-wristed, communists."

Bigotry is hurtful to all.

No it does not extend to political affiliation. You can change your political affiliation in less than five seconds. You cannot change your race.

You can also change your religion in 10 seconds or less....

Many times in this board, I have seen Republicans referred to "Redneck, inbred, nascar watching, hill billies."
Isn't that a stereotype?


Stereotyping isn't necessarily bigotry. To use an example I've trotted out before: If I see a man in shabby clothes, stumbling down the road towards me, mumbling incoherently to himself about "millenium hand and shrimp" who is weilding a half empty bottle of cheap whiskey in his hand, it is very likely I'm going to think he is a bum, instead of a college student on his way home from a party.

I've just stereotyped him based on superficial emperical evidence that points out that he is likely drunk, possibly crazy and possibly homeless. Many people make snap judgements like that all the time, every day.

That is a little different from seeing a group of African-American teens walking towards me and thinking "OMG! they are going to rob me!" I've just stereotyped them based on the color of their skin, not how they're acting or any other clues. It is bigotry when they don't rob me and the next 100 groups of teens I pass also fail to rob me and despite all evidence to the contrary I still think that "OMG! They are going to rob me!" because of their skin color and everyone knows that those kinds of folks are all on drugs and in gangs.

If they took out knives and pointed at me while speaking among themselves, it becomes be a different story.

To speak to your example, thinking all Republicans are redneck, inbred, NASCAR watching hillbillies is also bigoted and pretty ignorant.

Thinking that all Democrats are "socalistic, pinko, limp-wristed, communists bent on destroying America" is also bigoted and pretty ignorant as well. Spewing hateful rhetoric against that group and perpetuating that stereotype is exactly the kind of thing Coulter specializes in.

Christ this thread took a divebomb into stupid.