Ann Coulter, right wing goddess

POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Thursday, October 5, 2023 23:43
VIEWED: 28114
PAGE 2 of 2

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
So for all those principled conservatives out there, she's representing you and representing you often.

---

Too bad for the conservatives. If they want someone to express homophobic, anti-abortion, fundamentalist Christian views in the worst possible way, they can have her. Just because I don't care much for what she says doesn't mean I have to emulate her tactics.

If I were actually agreeing with what she says, I'd understand the reaction I'm getting, but getting insulted for basically noting that two wrongs don't make a right leads me to think that some folk are back in that old "anything other than total agreement is opposition" rut.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Oh Slick,

You are such a dissembler.

By you own post, here's how Richards and Coulter stack up.

Richards entertainer v Coulter 'entertainer' (more on that later)
Richards with 'intent to hurt' v Coulter with intent to hurt
Richards snapped v Coulter aforethought and malice
The only apparent difference (by your own post) is that Coulter spoke on purpose and Richards snapped. So in your mind Coulter should be excused because she said it on purpose.
Stellar logic, that.

You're surprised at the low tone of this thread? But not at Ann Coulter's speech? Now see, that's where your bias really shows.

As to her being an entertainer, this is how she lists herself on her website: "Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events".
The various speakers agencies through which she can be booked list her as "Bestselling Author and Political Commentator" (Premier Speakers Bureau); author and legal correspondent (The Clare Both Luce Policy Institute Conservative Woman Speakers Program), and many listings with the Young America's Foundation but entertainer is not one of them.
Coulter is an entertainer? Hardly ...

When I get up in front of an audience and call someone a nigger, or faggot, or kike I'll be JUST like Coulter. I'll be demeaning not only a person but a whole group of people based on bias. When I call you "stupid, pointless and wrong" it's a personal observation.
--------------

As to why you're getting attacked it's b/c you excuse hate speech when it comes from the right.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
If I were actually agreeing with what she says, I'd understand the reaction I'm getting, but getting insulted for basically noting that two wrongs don't make a right leads me to think that some folk are back in that old "anything other than total agreement is opposition" rut.

---

What it sounded to me like you were saying was, "Both sides do it." Which I think I have shown is not the case.

"Two wrongs don't make a right." But what if the two wrongs are apples and oranges when it comes to comparison? If you are trying to minimize the negativity of one wrong by comparing it to a categorically different wrong then I'd say you've got a dog in the hunt.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Richards snapped v Coulter aforethought and malice. The only apparent difference (by your own post) is that Coulter spoke on purpose and Richards snapped. So in your mind Coulter should be excused because she said it on purpose.
Stellar logic, that.

---

Never said that Coulter should be excused. Only said that I was disappointed that FFF folk would sink to her level.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
If I were actually agreeing with what she says, I'd understand the reaction I'm getting, but getting insulted for basically noting that two wrongs don't make a right leads me to think that some folk are back in that old "anything other than total agreement is opposition" rut.

---

What it sounded to me like you were saying was, "Both sides do it." Which I think I have shown is not the case.

---

Nope. I said that I'm disappointed that the opponents of Ms. Coulter would use the same tactics she does.

Quote:

---

"Two wrongs don't make a right." But what if the two wrongs are apples and oranges when it comes to comparison? If you are trying to minimize the negativity of one wrong by comparing it to a categorically different wrong then I'd say you've got a dog in the hunt.

---

"Negativity" is the key word here. If you oppose Ms. Coulter's negative approach, try something other than emulating her by doing the same thing. If the only way we can disagree is by negative attacks, we're all lost, no matter our position.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Slick,

"Negativity" is your key distraction here. What Coulter said was more than 'negative'. As usual, you have no point to make.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
"Negativity" is the key word here. If you oppose Ms. Coulter's negative approach, try something other than emulating her by doing the same thing. If the only way we can disagree is by negative attacks, we're all lost, no matter our position.

---

Any emulation here in this thread is only a pale imitation with no official sanction.

I see no one in this thread who makes tons of money from conservative organizations. I see no one in this thread who sells tons of books. I see no one in this thread who is invited on numerous cable news shows as a conservative commentator. I see no one in this thread who calls on their followers to violently attack those who disagree with them.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
"Negativity" is the key word here. If you oppose Ms. Coulter's negative approach, try something other than emulating her by doing the same thing. If the only way we can disagree is by negative attacks, we're all lost, no matter our position.

---

I tried to mention this earlier but a couple of posters kept moving the goalposts on me. Personally attacking Ann Coulter for personally attacking Edwards is apparently okay as long as it is only on this forum. The wrongness is in direct correlation to the size of the audience or some such.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Any emulation here in this thread is only a pale imitation with no official sanction.

I see no one in this thread who makes tons of money from conservative organizations. I see no one in this thread who sells tons of books. I see no one in this thread who is invited on numerous cable news shows as a conservative commentator. I see no one in this thread who calls on their followers to violently attack those who disagree with them.

---

So it's all right for folks here to manufacture or quote obviously bogus slander as long as they maintain their amateur status? Let me check the rule book. Nope, wrong is still wrong, pro or amateur.

Look. You got plenty of perfectly cogent arguments against Ms. Coulter's positions and methods. Is she prejudiced? Yes. Is she a rabble rouser? Yes. Does she incite folks to violence? Yes. Is she insulting? Yes. Does associating with her reflect badly on the conservative organizations which hire and support her? Yes. Do her actions bring the positions she supports into disrepute? Yes. I'm convinced.

So why the need for the kinky sex, blood bathing, transvestite, funny hands shtick? Someone put a good bit of effort into the sites that folks here linked to. What's the point? Just to look clever?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I think Geezer and BigDamnNobody have a fair point, since I'm not a big fan of the "We're nobodies, so we can say anything we like" argument either. There's no harm in making fun of her, but some of it tends to go too far.

---

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"Personally attacking Ann Coulter for personally attacking Edwards is apparently okay as long as it is only on this forum." et al

Somehow you all miss the point. So I'll try to draw some examples. If Slick says that night is day, I'd call him a liar, and righfully so. While this is 'negative', it's an individual observation about Slick and something he's done. If Zero snickers over someone's chosen hair color it would be 'negative' but still merely a personal opinion. If BDM crudely speculates about a Tammy's Faye's beauty regime, it might be crude and maybe offensive and certainly 'negative' but still merely personal.

When someone tries to demean another person by invoking a shared bias - nigger, faggot, kike - it goes beyond personal and into prejudice. And when they indeed try to incite violence it goes beyond prejudice and into hate speech. And when that person is paid millions to present that hate speech to large audiences it goes beyond hate speech into a concerted hate campaign.

You little boys got it now?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
When someone tries to demean another person by invoking a shared bias - nigger, faggot, kike - it goes beyond personal and into prejudice. And when they indeed try to incite violence it goes beyond prejudice and into hate speech. And when that person is paid millions to present that hate speech to large audiences it goes beyond hate speech into a concerted hate campaign.

You little boys got it now?

---

I had this from the getgo. I do have a problem with the concept that it's all right, in a public forum, "to demean another person by invoking a shared bias" (which I agree is prejudice) as long as you don't have a large audience or get paid for it. So what's the cut-off point between right and wrong; 100 people and $10.00? 1000 and $100.00?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So why the need for the kinky sex, blood bathing, transvestite, funny hands shtick? Someone put a good bit of effort into the sites that folks here linked to. What's the point? Just to look clever?

---

I'll try to walk a fine line without going over to concern trolling.

First we have to separate things out. BigDamnNobody's list of what they considered problematic statements is too broad. I'll attempt to summarize:

Ann Coulter is a(n):
Liar
Four hundred year old vampire who must bathe in the blood of virgins
object of fantasy for someone who wishes he could have anal intercourse with her
man
horse
attention-whore
right-wing loony
wingnut
not funny
embarassment to her race
Medusa
closet bull-dyke
weird hands
transexual

I'll regroup:

liar
attention-whore
right-wing loony
wingnut
not funny but thinks she is

four hundred year old vampire who must bathe in the blood of virgins
Medusa
horse

weird hands (although, if you are only making the weird hands observation as support for the transexual argument than this gets moved)

embarassment to her race

object of fantasy for someone who wishes he could have anal intercourse with her

closet bull-dyke

man
transexual

The first three groupings are: claims that can be supported with evidence, claims that are fantastic and not meant to be taken seriously and observations, respectively.

The last four groupings say a lot more about the person making the statement than the person being described. Of these groupings, the last two are troublesome to me. And I think the last grouping gets us into misogyny territory (although, I could see the argument that the last three groupings show this).

* edited to change penultimate to last three


* edited one more time to add: And I forget to tie all this together to attempt to answer the question I quoted .

Regardless of her message Ann Coulter is intelligent, well-educated, articulate and successful. And a woman. I personally think the transexual claims are evidence of cognitive dissonance on the part of the claimant. In other words, women can't be intelligent, well-educated, articulate and successful so Ann Coulter must be a man. And this explanation might be over simplistic.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:


closet bull-dyke

---

Hey, as I remember, I suggested that I think that might be her problem. A little joke, all right?

I'm not better that her on that score, and I think if she can't stand the heat, she oughtta stay outta the kitchen.

If she can use humor as a weapon of disrespect, so can I. Where is it written that we Lefties can't stoop to the level of the prejudiced and ignorant if we want to?

Kinda like Roger Ailes deliberately confusing Barrack Obama and Osama Ben Laden the other day.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"to demean another person by invoking a shared bias"

No Slick,

You still don't get it. There's a difference between making a PERSONAL remark about the SPECIFICS of an INDIVIDUAL, versus demeaning a whole group by using words like FAGGOT.

Or perhaps your thoughts are so soaked in prejudice you simply can't see it.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Soup

I think people are tranfixed by her lack of body fat, her huge hands and her manly Adam's apple. That is a strange combination of characteristics for a woman. Though I've read that chronic vomitters also develop large Adam's apples (as well as ruin their teeth).

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Rue

Yeah. I can see that. But I'm wondering if there's something going on way way underneath. Something similar to how when many successful women are described pains are taken to include some comment about their attractiveness. It's almost like the describer feels the need to remind people of an outdated notion of femininity. How many times have you heard a superstar (whether academic or athletic or business or media) introduced as, "And the talented and lovely (or handsome) ...?" Of that number, how many times was that superstar male? Not very many, I'm guessing.

I see this when I read supporters of Ann Coulter (and Michelle Malkin for that matter). It's a good bet that there will be some comment in there about her physical characteristics.

* edited to add: I need to remind myself to add the following line to the end of all my posts on this topic.

Ann Coulter is paid by conservatives to preach hate and intolerance. Her message reaches millions.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You still don't get it. There's a difference between making a PERSONAL remark about the SPECIFICS of an INDIVIDUAL, versus demeaning a whole group by using words like FAGGOT.

---

You said: "When someone tries to demean another person by invoking a shared bias - nigger, faggot, kike - it goes beyond personal and into prejudice." So apparently you think calling a person a nigger, faggot, or kike to demean them goes beyond personal insult and into prejudice against Blacks, homosexuals and Jews. I agree.

How about demeaning a person by calling them a transsexual, or a bull dyke, or sexually outside the norm? Is it all right to express prejudice against these three groups, but not against the N/F/K-word troika?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Slick,

There ARE transexuals who feel demeaned by being compared to Coulter. Is that what you mean?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Soup,

Come to think of it you're right. I've never heard a successful male being described as overfed and balding; or wimpy and effeminate. So, point taken.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

There ARE transexuals who feel demeaned by being compared to Coulter. Is that what you mean?

---

See Rue bob and weave. Bob and weave, Rue. Bob and weave.

C'mon, now. Is it prejudicial (to the person, or the minority, or both) to compare a person you don't like to a discriminated-against minority? You already said this applies to certain minorities, what about others equally oppressed?

Do you hate to give up your prejudices so much that you can't provide an honest answer?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

You said: "When someone tries to demean another person by invoking a shared bias - nigger, faggot, kike - it goes beyond personal and into prejudice." So apparently you think calling a person a nigger, faggot, or kike to demean them goes beyond personal insult and into prejudice against Blacks, homosexuals and Jews. I agree. How about demeaning a person by calling them a transsexual, or a bull dyke, or sexually outside the norm? Is it all right to express prejudice against these three groups, but not against the N/F/K-word troika?

---

I suppose one distinction is whether a person is in fact a faggot/bull dyke/ transexual. If someone is a transexual and you CALL them a transexual is that prejudice? Especially considering that the term "transexual" is neutral connotation? Or is it a simple statement of fact?

In any case, my point remains that if Ann Coulter can call smeone a "faggot" and backtrack by saying it was a "joke" then we can call her Trannie Annie in the same spirit. And Geezer, if you think that FFF.net folks wouldn't sink to that level, what about "Shiny"Ed, whose posts are replete with such gems as ...

pompous & hypocrite
pretty-boy
retarded
pretty-boy
pretty-boy
vile bloodsucking tort-lawyer
pimps
juman beans (an insult to juman beans everywhere...)
Silky Pony (Auraptor) and...

hey if it takes maniacal & demented religious sub-humans from Islam to shake up Hollywood degenerates

which was immediately followed by YOUR post...

In a later update, Tehran has moved to sever all diplomatic relations with Sparta in response to their attack on peace-loving Persian invaders 2,487 years ago.

Where's the outrage, man? Where's the disappointment about sinking so low?

Oh yeah, that's right.. it was all meant in fun.

So was mine.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Rue,

It takes a lot, from my personal experience, before a man's appearance comes into play. And then it's usually the way he dresses. In other words, he has to be a total slob before snide remarks come out. For a woman, not wearing make-up is usually enough.

Oh, and before I forget...

Ann Coulter is paid by conservatives to preach hate and intolerance. Her message reaches millions.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I guess Geezer has no explanation for his selective disappointment in the quality of FFF.net postings.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hi Soup,

I was thinking about that whole man-appearance thing ... people really comment on men's hair.

If you are a successful politician and have the misfortune of having a really full head of straight hair, if you part it to the side (like a normal person) people will say 'what is he trying to do, look like Jack (Kennedy)?' A la Condit, Edwards, and Kerry.

If you are financially successful and have a really bad comb-over people will say you're keeping live animals on your head.

And as you mentioned it's true that people do comment on attire - especially if you dress too 'metro'.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
I guess Geezer has no explanation for his selective disappointment in the quality of FFF.net postings.

---

Oh, so you're Rue's alter ego.

Well, let's back up to your last: "In any case, my point remains that if Ann Coulter can call smeone a "faggot" and backtrack by saying it was a "joke" then we can call her Trannie Annie in the same spirit."

Sure, you got the right to insult Ms. Coulter by making demeaning comparisons with transexuals. Does sort of undercut your complaints about her actions if you do the same thing. Which has been my point from the beginning.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

But you didn't answer my question. Why are you so selective about "Trannie Annie" comments but not about all the other bashing that went on? If you're going to tsk-tsk you may as well be fair about it. Right?

So from now on I expect to see you tsk-tsking over EVERY demeaning, prejudicial comment!



heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Slick,

Some replies, comments and questions.

"See Rue bob and weave. Bob and weave, Rue. Bob and weave." I work and do my quick reads over lunch. Got a nice juicy sample just full of toxics to fill my days, too. What's your excuse? But "bob and weave" - that's SignyM's old phrase, not mine. And it's from years ago if I recall correctly. Musta hit a nerve, for you to remember it so long.

So I checked out it out. The VERY FIRST mention of Coulter being a trans-X (-sexual, -gender, -vestite or whatnot) was PirateNews Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 19:20.

The NEXT post on the topic was from you Slick, March 08, 2007 - 02:27 asking why 'multiple posters' call her a trans-X; and again Monday, March 12, 2007 - 14:23 asking about the trans-X 'schtick'. In fact, the only person who keeps doing that schtick would be you.

What's with that?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Sure, you got the right to insult Ms. Coulter by making demeaning comparisons with transexuals. Does sort of undercut your complaints about her actions if you do the same thing. Which has been my point from the beginning.

---

But is the point to focus in on only one aspect of the problem? The one aspect that allows us to not discuss the more pressing issue concerning one political party's institutional support and encouragement of hate speech and what it says about a subset of it's members that this tactic works?

Oh, and...

Ann Coulter is paid by conservatives to preach hate and intolerance. Her message reaches millions.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hi Rue,

You're absolutely right about the hair. And the other side of appearance, if it looks like you spend too much time thinking about your appearance.

Something else to throw into the mix is smiling. I stumbled upon a discussion on a feminist group blog about irritation over stranger's telling women that they needed to smile. (* eta: Every woman had some story to relate of a man they didn't know coming up to them and making some comment about smiling, or not frowning, etc.)

Oh, and...

Ann Coulter is paid by conservatives to preach hate and intolerance. Her message reaches millions.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
if you think that FFF.net folks wouldn't sink to that level, what about "Shiny"Ed, whose posts are replete with such gems as ...
pompous & hypocrite
pretty-boy
retarded
pretty-boy
pretty-boy
vile bloodsucking tort-lawyer
pimps
juman beans (an insult to juman beans everywhere...)
Silky Pony (Auraptor) and...

hey if it takes maniacal & demented religious sub-humans from Islam to shake up Hollywood degenerates

which was immediately followed by YOUR post...

In a later update, Tehran has moved to sever all diplomatic relations with Sparta in response to their attack on peace-loving Persian invaders 2,487 years ago.

Where's the outrage, man? Where's the disappointment about sinking so low?

Oh yeah, that's right.. it was all meant in fun.

So was mine.

---

Thanks Jkiddo! It's about gorram time I received some props here, instead of the usual ruttin' bashing I get. Look......I tells it like I sees it....no links (sorry Chrisisall), no patties, no wikipedophilia...just moi ! By the way...the terms you quoted ( a clever combination by you of 2 or 3 different posts ) are just my second stringers....surely you've seen my best work somewhere else here....no? I know when I've done well by all the vitriolic & hateful responses I get from the Rennaissance Fair/tree-hugging crowd...ya know...idiot, troll, moron, neo-con etc etc etc .....yaaaaawwwnnn!....How boring and predictable....although I am seeing more & more 'coats with a sense of humor about political things & world events....and really, that's me in a nutshell...just poking fun at all the absurdities in the world, and all the f'ing bullshit we are supposed to suck down every day....not me...I'm a college graduate with a good job & a great family!.....Like I really give a rats's patoot about smarmy politics or Iraq or Iran or Venezuela, or Hollywood, or anything!///I don't...I take care of me & mine, and that don't include anyone else 'less I conjure it does.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
But is the point to focus in on only one aspect of the problem? The one aspect that allows us to not discuss the more pressing issue concerning one political party's institutional support and encouragement of hate speech and what it says about a subset of it's members that this tactic works?

---

Not a bit. Focusing on Ms. Coulter's support and encouragement of hate speech should be the point of the thread. There has been some of that going on. But using hate speech against Ms. Coulter in complaining about her hate speech seems to show a double standard, which is what I originally pointed out.

Quote:

---

Ann Coulter is paid by conservatives to preach hate and intolerance. Her message reaches millions.

---

Yep. We get this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

So I checked out it out. The VERY FIRST mention of Coulter being a trans-X (-sexual, -gender, -vestite or whatnot) was PirateNews Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 19:20.

The NEXT post on the topic was from you Slick, March 08, 2007 - 02:27 asking why 'multiple posters' call her a trans-X; and again Monday, March 12, 2007 - 14:23 asking about the trans-X 'schtick'. In fact, the only person who keeps doing that schtick would be you.

---

Anyone who takes the time to actually read my first post will note you're pretty selective in taking things out of context to avoid the issue. Typical.

So back to the question you're trying to avoid with this little smokescreen.

"Is it prejudicial (to the person, or the minority, or both) to compare a person you don't like to a discriminated-against minority? You already said this applies to certain minorities, what about others equally oppressed?"

Still not expecting a straight answer.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Slick,

Nope, not taking it out of context. You are the only one using the trans-X schtick. Not to criticize Coulter but to portray her a martyr. No one else here is doing trans-X. Just you.

Why is that?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

But using hate speech against Ms. Coulter in complaining about her hate speech seems to show a double standard, which is what I originally pointed out.

---

Can you not tell when people are making an ironic point? Do you really think that people here (except PN... and perhaps you) give a friggin' rat's behind about Ann's hands, her adam's apple, or her sexuality?

You seem like a normally intelligent juman bean. Just terribly one-sided.


heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

Nope, not taking it out of context. You are the only one using the trans-X schtick. Not to criticize Coulter but to portray her a martyr. No one else here is doing trans-X. Just you.

Why is that?

---

Right again. No straight answer.

Let's try again, shall we?

"Is it prejudicial (to the person, or the minority, or both) to compare a person you don't like to a discriminated-against minority? You already said this applies to certain minorities, what about others equally oppressed?"

A simple Yes or No would be fine.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

So Geezer, when will I get a straight answer out of you?

And now the comedy stylings of...

John Edwards is a bunch of sticks? Well, he always did seem a little stiff...-Geezer
Its the one up his ass that...damn. Too easy.-Hero


Dishes out but can't take it.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Slick,

Quote:

---

Anyone who takes the time to actually read my first post will note you're pretty selective in taking things out of context to avoid the issue. Typical.

---

Your first post? Would that be this one?

Quote:

---

John Edwards is a bunch of sticks? Well, he always did seem a little stiff...

---

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wow! This thread has seen a lot of mileage since I've been here last and, big suprise, it hasn't really resolved anything.

There was something that I believe Soupcatcher mentioned about Ann representing the Conservatives (and making them look real bad) that made me think about my arguement to Science types in here and their Richard Dawkins.

This gave me an idea. Celebrity Deathmatch between Ann and Richard! At the very least let's set up a boxing match between them like the time Danny Bonaduce beat the shit out of Donny Osmond. I'd imagine that Ann would have the advantage here though, what with the reach advantage those hands give her and the fact that your stereotypical Scientist is a big pussy. The added bonus here for the spectators is that we finally get to see Survival of the Fittest in action.

That or we should set them up on a blind date. I think the both of them need to just get laid and then maybe they'll shut up. aaaahhhhhhhh.... talk about the pot calling the kettle black..... sigh

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Your first post? Would that be this one?

Quote:

---

John Edwards is a bunch of sticks? Well, he always did seem a little stiff...

---

---

Oh, sorry. second post, then.

So, how about it? Is insulting someone by comparing them to an unfairly oppressed minority prejudice? Y or N? Or don't you know?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

6-string

'Cause of your hours I think you're going to be destined to posting at odd times, and not be able to get a continuous conversation going.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I know... it makes me sad. I only do this on work time though. Not that I don't enjoy our conversations even when my blood pressure is through the roof, cause that's how I roll, but contrary to what may be popular belief I actually do have a life outside of wacko (or Waco) conspiracy theories and being a complete nutjob when I'm off work and I've got time to waste on more exciting time wasters than RWED. Then of course, there's always that sleep nuisance that gets in the way of life too. I don't much see the sun cause of my hours. I'm glad it's still light out when I wake up now cause of the time change.

So, what do you think? Get them in the ring together? It'll make a ton on Pay Per View. Where's Don King?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tangent, sortta, since you brought up Don King and Rue referenced Trump earlier...

I, personally, would pay money to see King's hair take on The Donald's hair.

* eta: Actually, there is a potential fight brewing with Ann Coulter. Her column was dropped by a few papers over the comments. One paper replaced her with a column by Michelle Malkin (who is also a recipient of the largesse of Regnery Books). Malkin went on to kind of pile on the Coulter-screwed-up bandwagon.

So this could get interesting.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Slick,

"For multiple posters to suggest that Ann Coulter bathes in virgins' blood, enjoys taking it up the a** while listening to liberal viewpoints, is a transvestite, has had a sex change, etc., is just good fun.

Do I detect a slight case of double standard here?

Not expecting a reasonable answer Geezer."

Been there, done that. As I said (how many times already ...? too many to count) ... to make personal observations, while 'negative' is not necessarily bias. Saying Coulter has weird hands, a muscular neck and manly Adam's apple is like saying Tammy Faye has so much mascara on she looks like catepillars crawled on her eyes. It's not an attempt to invoke shared prejudice.

So I HOPE at this point we're restricting this to what may be borderline bias. That leaves only the trans-X topic. The problem is the single person here who posts on that topic is you.

To answer the question is to default accept your rhetoric that we all here have been sharing bias about trans-X, engaging in that double-standard you opined about. And as I said, the only person posts on tran-X is you.

And then to decry that you won't get a 'reasonable' answer to your loaded question is to pronounce 'guilt' on a stacked question.

And that's why I think you're such a sack of crap. Not a slur on crap mind you, just an observation.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Apparently Geezer you have your sights locked on Rue and you're ignoring me, so I'll feel free to answer for you.

-----------------------------------
Q: Why are you so selective about "Trannie Annie" comments but not about all the other bashing that went on?

A: Well, when I find that people are bashing someone I don't like by using prejudice and hate speech- like John Edwards being a faggot or Muslims being maniacal, Hollywood-types being degenerate or Liberals being sneaky- my first response is to add to the festivities....
Hey if it takes maniacal & demented religious sub-humans from Islam to shake up Hollywood degenerates- ShinyEd
In a later update, Tehran has moved to sever all diplomatic relations with Sparta in response to their attack on peace-loving Persian invaders 2,487 years ago.- Geezer

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards" - Coulter
John Edwards is a bunch of sticks? Well, he always did seem a little stiff... -Geezer

What gives? You sneaky Liberals are up to something again.- 6Sixstring
Vote for me, John Edwards - It's what Jesus would do. He told me so.- Geezer

In fact, if someone that I didn't like were being burned at the stake I'd prolly be standing on the sidelines offering tongue-in-cheek quips like "Does anyone need a lighter?" Because, you know, the moment is too serious, it needs humor.


Q: If you're going to tsk-tsk you may as well be fair about it. Right?

A: I do have a problem with the concept that it's all right, in a public forum, "to demean another person by invoking a shared bias". And because when someone I disagree uses humor in a hateful way that's wrong. They're tolerating "hate speech". But when I do it, it's different because I'm not biased.


Q: {But} Can you not tell when people are making an ironic point? Do you really think that people here (except PN... and perhaps you) give a friggin' rat's behind about Ann's hands, her adam's apple, or her sexuality?

A: Of course not. I'd rather bust someone's chops over something I do myself because then I can call them hypocrites.



Q: You said: Using hate speech against Ms. Coulter in complaining about her hate speech seems to show a double standard, which is what I originally pointed out. May I point out that what you ORIGINALLY pointed out is that John Edwards is a faggot?

A: Anyone who takes the time to actually read my first post will note you're pretty selective in taking things out of context to avoid the issue. Typical. That's humor.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
Apparently Geezer you have your sights locked on Rue and you're ignoring me...

---

I sometimes get the feeling Geezer and Rue are an old couple that are on here bickering for a laugh. Every now and again I could swear they're married or something. Of course, if they're like this in RL then one of them would have committed suicide already.

6string gave me an idea (btw, my money would be on Coulter in that match):

If Geezer and Rue were married in real life, who would commit suicide first?

Taking bets now...

---

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"If Geezer and Rue were married in real life, who would commit suicide first?"

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ... snort ... ha ha ha ha ...

But suicide ? I'm not a quitter. If you're at the point of killing, murder is a more effective solution to the problem.

Oh, and to answer your question, I'd bet on Slick committing suicide first.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
If you're at the point of killing, murder is a more effective solution to the problem.

---

Good point.

---

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
I sometimes get the feeling Geezer and Rue are an old couple that are on here bickering for a laugh. Every now and again I could swear they're married or something.

---

I've always considered Rue more of a stalker than a spouse. He (or she) waits for me to express an opinion and then starts disagreeing and hurling insults. For example, my post in this thread about a preceived double standard didn't even mention Rue or Rue's comments, but Rue jumped right in. Rue also managed to singlehandedly kill any fun we might have been having in the 300 thread.

Wow. My own stalker. Lucky me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

XXX Warning: Mann Coulter loves GOP Jawbreaker Patriot Ass gay porn star Rod Majors aka Matt Sanchez
http://tombacchus.blogspot.com/2007/03/dirty-sanchez.html

Nazi Arnold Schwarzennegger is also a gay porn star, "servicing" the Jewish elite at Bohemian Grove nudist compound:
www.piratenews.org/secretivesocieties.html
www.piratenews.org/bushgaygate.html

Quote:

---

Hannity's "Great Americans" A Former Gay Porn Star And Male Prostitute
www.jonesreport.com/articles/080307_hannity_gay_porn.html


News Hounds
March 8, 2007

No, not Jeff Gannon/Guckert but Cpl. Matt Sanchez who appeared on Hannity & Colmes to talk about an alleged incident of being called a baby killer by members of Columbia University's International Socialist Organization. So eager was Sean Hannity to embrace this "victim" of liberal hate (which Columbia, though it investigated the incident, never confirmed) that nobody at FOX News seems to have bothered to do any kind of background check. Or maybe they did and nobody cared.



Had they done the same kind of research Hannity always blames Dan Rather for not doing, "America's Newsroom" FOX News would have discovered this, courtesy of Max Blumenthal, at the Huffington Post:

Quote:

---

As several gay blogs revealed late yesterday, Corporal Sanchez was known during his halcyon days as Rod Majors, a majorly well-endowed gay porn star. (Photos of Corp. Sanchez aka Rod Majors in action can be viewed here. I warn you, this link is NOT to be clicked on if you have minors around or if you're in a crowded workplace). According to Tom Bacchus, Sanchez was also a $200-an-hour male prostitute who advertised himself (here) as an "excellent top."
You can read more and follow Blumenthal's links at HuffPo.
www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/cpacs-gay-porn-star-hono_b_42842
.html

---

Mann Coulter with Log Cabin Jew Matt Drudge at Gay Pride parade

Hormone replacement therapy (trans)

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for transgender and transsexual people replaces the hormones naturally occurring in their bodies with those of the other sex. Its purpose is to cause the development of the secondary sex characteristics of the desired gender. It can not undo the changes produced by the first natural occurring puberty of transgender people, this is done by sexual reassignment surgery and for transwomen by epilation. Some intersex people also receive HRT, either starting in childhood to confirm the gender they were assigned, or later, if this assigment has proven to be incorrect.

Some individuals choose to self-administer their medication ("do-it-yourself"), often because available doctors have too little experience in this matter, or no doctor is available in the first place. Sometimes, trans persons choose to self-administer because their doctor will not prescribe hormones without a letter from the patient's therapist stating that the patient meets the diagnostic criteria for GID and is making an informed decision to transition.

A number of skeletal and cartilaginous changes take place after the onset of puberty at various rates and times. Sometime in the late teen years epiphyseal clusure (in other words, the ends of bones are fused closed) takes place and the length of bones is fixed for life. Consequently total height and the length of arms, legs, hands, and feet are not affected by HRT. However, details of bone shape change throughout life, bones becoming heavier and more deeply sculptured under the influence of testosterone. Many of these differences are described in the Desmond Morris book Manwatching.

Pelvis: The pelvis in females tends to be wider than in males and tilted forward; the pelvis is males tends to be more circular and tilted upwards.



Larynx: At puberty, the bones and cartilage of the voicebox tend to enlarge

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Rue also managed to singlehandedly kill any fun we might have been having in the 300 thread.

---

Yeah I like picking on Hollywood degenerates and fantical rag-heads too. It's a lot more fun than picking on hate-mongering women with big Adam's apples. 'Cause ya know, that's different.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

If it weren't for pernicious personal attacks, strident political treatise (from the left and the right and everywhere in between and beyond), both 'sides' crying foul on the other, extremist viewpoints, baiting, nitpicking, crackpot and halfbaked theories, stalkers, manifestoes and long diatribes on why everyone else is a complete and utter moron there wouldn't be any posts in RWE.





Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Nah... I occasionally stoop to listening to others. I just don't like it when hypocrites call other people hypocrites. It just seems, you know, hypocritical.

'Cause, that's different No offense meant to you.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

None taken.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sahara:
If it weren't for pernicious personal attacks, strident political treatise (from the left and the right and everywhere in between and beyond), both 'sides' crying foul on the other, extremist viewpoints, baiting, nitpicking, crackpot and halfbaked theories, stalkers, manifestoes and long diatribes on why everyone else is a complete and utter moron there wouldn't be any posts in RWE.

---

What are you talking about? None of that stuff ever happens in here.

In denial Khyronisall

---

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

'She' always looked like one of those hair metal dudes, a pre-op transsexual political prostitute, best pals with e-fag Matt Drudge.

Coulter made headlines during the 2008 Presidential primaries by endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton for president instead of John McCain, rode the wave of Bush nationalism that was big with little Bush after 911, was a vocal supporter and defender of Mitt Romney as presidential candidate. Mann Coulter's gaydar failed to track homosexual pedophile Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley before his resignation in disgrace

She is still an idiot

Coulter Ann says USA should actually invade Canada.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/12/01/coulter-canada-is-lucky-we
-allow-them-to-exist/132376

America's Brahmin Caste: You can get away with ANYTHING if you look like this!

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1703522546006528281#m

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
'She' always looked like one of those hair metal dudes, a pre-op transsexual political prostitute, best pals with e-fag Matt Drudge.

---

I was going to quote the thread title and then say "she" was OG GOP Tranny with that monster Adam's apple and all, but you beat me to it.



Fuck Arnold Coulter and "her" Uniparty Bushite friends.

--------------------------------------------------

How you do anything is how you do everything.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Ann Coulter describes a podcaster as having battered wife syndrome when he asks her why she doesn’t have any faith in Trump.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1709950089865863248

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME