Personally, I tune her out.

I believe she's free to say what she wants. I'm free to ignore her.

"ll you've done is give the left more ammunition that the right is a bunch of homophobic, ignorant, intolerant idiots. Why the hell do people keep giving her these chances to speak to large groups of conservatives?"" Says Jay.

Yes Jay she has except that i wouldn't tar the entire right (as some many lefties like to tar the entire left). But there is a significant audience on the right she speaks to and for. She's a disgrace and so are they.

Your piece was one of the best pieces of rationalization ,minimization and justification I may have actually ever read. And that's a disgrace.

So Hugh. DOes your analysis apply to Al Franken, and any number of hosts at Air America, and half of the Democratic politicians in congress? There is a significant audience they speak for when they spout things like "The American Taliban" Or "Hey you Jesus freaks" Or "The soldiers are murders comparable to Ghengis Khan" To paraphrase but a minute slice of the comments.

When you have no defense Ryan just change the subject. I'll answer your question after you tell us your position about the present issue.

I'd love to have seen one of the Republican candidates say, "Sure, I'll denounce and repudiate Ann Coulter ... the second I hear all the Democratic candidates denounce and repudiate Cindy Sheehan."

SS

Hugh, my thoughts mirror J's piece. Happy?

Now answer Ryan's query.

Marc are you Ryan?

Hugh, are you a shitheel? (Rhetorical question, you do not have ot answer.)

Well SS;

I looked at my heel and I see no shot on it.

ooops....shit on it.

The left has a problem with Ann Coulter because what she says is true and they don't like it.

Soooooo Rudi G., McCain and Romney have a problem with her too and that must make them part of the left? Who else ya got to run now smartguy?

See, at least they have some intellectual and moral honesty unlike.....

Hugh, nice try at blurring what smartguy said.

He said "that's why THE LEFT" has problems with Coulter.

That in no way means -- or even implies -- that everyone who has problems with Coulter is part of the left.

BTW, smartguy exaggerated a bit. It would have been more accurate to say that "that is one reason why a chunk of the left" has problems with her.

J.

Me? I think she makes many valid points, but is stupid in the way she goes about it and unnecessarily incinidary, and she also makes a number of points I don't like. Really, I don't like her all that much.She's a sensationalist and I wouldn't invite her over to dinner, nor would I probably go out to dinner with her. She belongs to the wing of the party that is "Everything my way or nothing, lets throw the baby out with the bathwater". I lump her in with many other politicians in the category of those that often do more harm than good, despite having many valid things to say. I don't defend her because she said a dumbass thing.

Now, how about YOU stop ducking and dodging and answer the question?

And no, I am not Marc.

OK Ryan:

Faggot, raghead, communist, fascist, traitor, america hater, baby killer, american taliban, jesus freak. growling fuck you to a senator, or anyone else for that matter and any other racist, sexist, anti-religious label of someone is unacceptable and worthy of condemnation whether the speaker be from the left, the middle or the right.

By the way I'm sure I left out lots of "labels". But I think you get my point.

Attempts by posters like Jay to rationalize, justify and minimize thos kind of slurs are beyond pathetic. At least Lorie in her post and some others have had the integrity to call it what it was.

Ann Coulter is very smart and I believe that one day she set out to make lots of money. There are many verbal bomb throwers on the left, so she likely decided she could make way more money throwing verbal bombs from the right. Who knows, she may not even be conservative, which explains many of her most provocative comments. She doesn't seem to care what damage she may do to conservatism in the long run as long as it brings in the bucks. You'll notice that over time Ann is throwing more and bigger verbal bombs, which is in keeping with a straggly to make money regardless of what damage she does to the cause she claims to represent. By the time she's done I expect that she'll be really wealthy (in the Oprah Winfrey league) and conservatism will have suffered considerable damage. That leads me to believe that Ann Coulter is really a lefty (in the Al Gore league), but lots smarter and willing to take the long term view. I expect Ann will one day announce a sudden enlightenment and publicly acclaim her liberalism. She'll likely rake in even more money then as she writes books embracing the left's hate for the right.

I would advise true conservatives to denounce Ann Coulter now before the damage to the cause is irreparable. Political hate speech should stay in the moralphobic left where it's fully embraced.

I've yet to find anyone with half an ounce of brains that can say Ann called Edwards a faggot.

All she said was she may have to go to rehab just for using the term. She may be right. Looks like with all the piling on the next step is for some dumbass leftie or rightie insist she enter rehab.

Geez. What a bunch of PC losers we have inhabiting this country. Reminds me of when almost "anyone" dies now, the first step is to call in the "counselors". GOOD GRIEF! Counselors? Suck it up, move on, people die.

Small nit to pick, Hugh ...

Ryan asked you a direct question:

So Hugh. DOes your analysis apply to Al Franken, and any number of hosts at Air America, and half of the Democratic politicians in congress? There is a significant audience they speak for when they spout things like "The American Taliban" Or "Hey you Jesus freaks" Or "The soldiers are murders comparable to Ghengis Khan" To paraphrase but a minute slice of the comments.

You responded:

I'll answer your question after you tell us your position about the present issue.

He answered your question.

Instead of responding to the question that he asked, you threw in a gratuitous slap at the right in your response - which served to generalize and minimize the offenses of the left.

By blurring and generalizing the message, you failed to have the integrity that Ryan displayed by his frank condemnation of Coulter and failed to demonstrate the integrity that you claimed that Jay lacked.

You also failed to answer the question IMO.

Luke:

Actually I think you need rehab. On second thought, forget it. Keep on trucking. Folks like you guarantee the continuing political losses of the right.

Ohio Voter:

You must be blind I guess or do you just read one comment and start frothing.

What I wrote in response applies to Franken any democrat or anyone else. Got it now? If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty you'd acknowledge I condemned any and all "slurs" by both sides.

You want me to add more labels? Would that make you happy? List them and I'll condemn them. Christ a mighty sometimes I wonder about folks like you.

Nah Hugh. No rehab needed here. I have been living and providing for myself all my life.

I sure don't need PC weenies from the far, far left telling me what I need or, for that matter, their help in providing it.

Proud conservative who have many liberal friends and we argue into the night sometimes but remain friends. We have yet to call a counselor or enter rehab because of our discussions.

Get over it Hugh, the men are in charge.

Well I wonder if you call one another faggots or traitors or jesus freaks or religious nuts or america haters etc.?

I suspect not. Thank you for making my point.

Jay, ggod job!

As to the humorless assholes who call for denouncement and distancing ones self; to all those assholes; Fuck you!

make that sanctimonious assholes!

If her goal was getting attention for herself, it was a success. Otherwise, it was not a wise comment as all it does is provide fodder for the imbecilic left wing media.

It cannot be left to blogs to try to interpret cerebral nuance for the masses.

Who is apologizing for Maher? There was no confusion about his wishing death on Cheney.

Ann Coulter Rocks! If all the faggots out there like Hugh don't like it, then tough shit.

Hugh:

Rethuglicans, repukelicans, fascists, Bushitler, Chimpy, Nazis, wingnuts (although that one is a nice little counterpoint to "moonbats," but not quite as amusing), Jesus freaks, Bible-thumpers, fundies...

You wanna play the "who has more and worse names than the other?" Pretty pointless to me.

J.

Compared to the daily fair of bombast and diatribe from the left, Ann is tame. She has no real responsibility, just stirs things up. What is shocking is how the current crop of wanna-bees responds to a comedic line.

Luke for Pres ...

The problem with bombthrowers is that they must keep going lower and lower to administer the same shock value and get the same attention. In their narcissistic desire, not to to set any limits, they become the story not their opponents. As for what little truths Ann reveals, the comments by the commenters speak for themselves. As for her 'faggot' comment about Edwards, being only contextual; this wasn't the first time.

Yeah, Ann creeps up to the line all the time and crosses it now and then.

But politics in America is a blood sport- always has been, always will be. We have had Presidential campaigns where the candidate's wife was called a whore, or the candidate was called an ape.

There are people on the Left who accuse the President of orchestrating 9/11 for profit. Compared to that, someone on the Right implying a Dem candidate might be a 'faggot' is pretty mild.

It's regrettable that ANY of this is part of the political dialogue, but there it is. That horse has left the barn.

Well Jay that was exactly my point to Ohio Voter and in 2 of my comments. Duh

Hugh:

Well I wonder if you call one another faggots or traitors.......

No we don't Hugh. Our biggest argument has been whether the right hated Clinton as much as the moonbat left hate GW Bush.

I say no way, some say of course, yet no one offers up any proof of the right's hatred of Clinton that comes close to the left's hatred of Bush.

Personally I didn't hate Clinton at all and found him humorous. I thought he had lots of chutzpah for wagging that finger in my face and stating the lie, "I didn't have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".

Now his wife may be another matter. She obviously wants to take from the rich and give to the poor in greater amounts. A bit of a socialist I'm afraid and I could never find her humorous.

Regards.

perssonally, I don't condemn "growling 'fuck you' to a Senator..."

I can think of several who deserve it.

It's called "senatorial courtesy."

I enjoy reading her weekly essays. She has an excellent insight and sense of humor, usually.

I think this joke fell flat because it wasn't that good, and too tangential to Johnny's real "issues."

I find about 95% of what she writes about to be right on target. If she makes a bad joke, I'm willing to look past it, especially after all the fake outrage on the Left.

So Hugh, you, yourself attempt to make a point to Ryan by using a multiple string of obscenities (or labels as you like to use). I guess its OK because your in line with a bunch of other hypocrites feeling a little blue over not understanding what she was trying to say. Both your words and her word if attached to either of you and taken out of context are offensive.

Now why shouldn't the left and the right (Rudy, Romney and the rest) denounce you for the same reason you denounce Coulter? Oh yea, your righteousness is a little disingenuously showing.

Great call, Mac Lorry. I don't think she'll 'convert' to the other side, because she'd never share the stage with Franken.

Jay, all the explaining that you just did amounts to doing her job for her. I don't see that as anything but a liability. Has she ever been any good in a debate?

I understand the need to ridicule. Just about every rightwing blog gets clowns that are beyond any reasonable discussion. Making these people feel ridiculous is the only real answer.
But there's plenty of defeat in that victory. As corny as it sounds, dealing with bombthrowers on a regular basis makes a person tonedeaf to political discourse. The victorious fighter loses a little bit of "that vision thing" that Reagan was famous for. All for the price of defending a post that might have stood on it's own just fine.

The flipside of bombthrowing is peeling off the moderates of the other party. I'd trade Ann for another Bill Whittle anytime.

Oh, and since Johhny's website is now using this as a fundraising outrage device, I'm really not upset about Ann.

Screw Johnny fag boy. Hee, hee.

I had always assumed that John "Girl-Hands" Edwards was bi.

Hmmmm. Notice that hughie was the first to jump on the faggot issue. Hmmmm.
(P S -"turban"=nazi, "murtha"=coldblooded, sKerry=dumb soldier, etc.)

Sadly we're all to engaged in the process of calling each other out to let posts like Dave's stand out. Ann and Rush provide a counterpoint to the Mahers and Frankens (now there's a direction one could throw the old English term for a cigarette).

I agree they dilute out any intellectual platform when they toss bombs, and they toss bombs to get attention as much as to make a point. Its a form of pornography that is just as debasing to politics as X-rated video is to sex.

So while I can follow the logic of Jay's piece, I find it sounding more like NAMBLA propaganda than a William Buckley essay on freedom of speech and political process. While Ann is just a little easier on the eyes then WFB, that doesn't mean I enjoy her as my spokesperson, even as a fringe element. This recent faggot comment thing is nothing to me. Some of her previous tripe I've found very disturbing.

JT, take a step back and rethink this one a little more.

I kinda agree with Ann's response, 'I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean'.

Why compare the partially demented with someone seriously demented, or, just anotehr lying lib politician, who claimed 'people like C. Reeve would walk if Hanoi John was elected' and that he also 'channeled' the words of an unborn girl.

Would people like Reeve really have gotten up and walked, and, how come he hasnt channeled the voices of the 4000 innocent babies the dems help murder every day.

Luke wrote:

Hugh:

Well I wonder if you call one another faggots or traitors.......

No we don't Hugh. Our biggest argument has been whether the right hated Clinton as much as the moonbat left hate GW Bush.

I say no way, some say of course, yet no one offers up any proof of the right's hatred of Clinton that comes close to the left's hatred of Bush.

Personally I didn't hate Clinton at all and found him humorous. I thought he had lots of chutzpah for wagging that finger in my face and stating the lie, "I didn't have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".

It's been enlightening to see how the Wizbang regulars, despite seeming more balanced than most other right-wing bloggers, use very specific techniques to warp reality to suit their beliefs. One technique, used in the Amanda Marcotte brouhaha, is the "Straw Man": take someone's comments, the juicier the better, completely out of context; label them as "exact quotes" to give them false credibility; ignore and discard completely the main purpose and points of the original statement or article the comments were snipped from (I kind of like the term "barbering") to grossly mischaracterize the the comments, and by quick extension the person making them; and then use these mischaracterizations to create essentially an utterly fictitious personna -- aka "The Straw Man" -- to represent the person the comments were barbered from.

Let's call that "The Right's 1st Deadly Sin -- The Straw Man"

For the right's "Second Deadly Sin," let's use their habit of using "false equivalence" -- defending very bad behavior or comments of an ally or friend by referencing, often in a vague manner, far more minor, often very trivial comments and behavior issues of rivals or opponents, and then presenting them as being somehow equivalent and thereby a wash. So whenever, say, Ann Coulter says something outrageous, invoke Al Franken. The right's biggest and most steady false equivalence, of course, has been in equating Bill Clinton's verbal trickery (technically he didn't actually lie-lie) involving his office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky to that of Bush's lies and behavior involving Iraq. One involves a personal matter between consenting adults, however unseemly, the other massive death and destruction, yet most right wingers and conservatives feel totally free to equate the two situations, that is if they even admit to Bush lying. The fallback for the right is that they will seriously state that it wasn't about a stained blue dress, but that Clinton had "lied to Congress" -- which is of course no more than a deliberately cryptic reference to Clinton's verbal trickery regarding his relationship to Monica.

In any case, comments and behavior resulting in massive death and destruction are not at all equivalent to comments and behavior resulting in a really pissed-off wife (even if she does become President later on....), which makes any and all attempts at doing so "The Right's 2nd Deadly Sin -- False Equivalence."

OK, BC, let's go after your first straw man. You say that Amanda Marcotte's quotes were taken "out of context." The ones I saw were fully contextualized -- and that didn't help 'em in the least.

Why don't you go back and find one of those quotes and show the "context" in which it wasn't as despicable as it seemed on first blush?

J.

To expand on Luke's comment @ 8:45:

Editor & Publisher relates the story this way:

Speaking Friday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Coulter closed her remarks with: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

For those of you that never took an English course after 6th grade, she said that if she "...can't really talk about Edwards" because of not wanting to "...use the word 'faggot'". She didn't say "call someone a 'faggot'"she said "use the word". Maybe you think that is what she meant, but with some effort I'm sure you could use that word in a sentence discussing Edward's political positions rather than his sexual ones. Possibly she was planning to use a word much worse than 'faggot' and lamenting what the punishment might be. And based on 'tolerance' what's wrong with 'faggot'? English is a language that can be very precise and everyone seems to be interpreting this rather than reading it as it was said. This is the same thing that is so irritating about the misuse of the language by the lame stream media, it's targeted to play to people whose jumping to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence is their main source of exercise.

Perhaps patent infringement on the use of technique, but which school of journalism actually holds the patent?

Ann Coulter, the intelllectual depravity of the Republican conservatives at its best. And here is more of the base committing their approval of the same. http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/55711567.html

At the same time the economic depravity of the republican administration shows in the attitude it has shown toward "support the troops" while allowing the injured and maimed to languish in mice infested, mold covered decrepit buildings and sending kids to war "with the army we've got" not the army we want.

I suppose the base will find a way to excuse the reasoning behind this kind of depravity too. Always an excuse.

This is just ANOTHER small part of what has been going on during George's last six years of warmongering. I suppose no one knew about it until the press uncovered it. Did the AP get it wrong?

God, when will you people ever figure it out? Your intransigence toawrds accepting the filth and lies this government is throwing all over you is simply unexplainable.

Luke you got it. If you don't like, don't read/listen to it.

Hugh, bug off whimp. People aren't voting Kommiecrat because of her. Take your PC and sulk.

BillyBob, can I buy you a beer?

Another PCer, wavemaker (in a teacup I suppose)

Here's the deal; now I wonder, after watching that hair brush thingy, is he a faggot?

Ann Tees me off so I go months again before reading her. Its my choice.

Damn PC! Lets be men...

Having now read a number of blogs, all critical of Coulter's most recent zinger in one way or another, I have found a number of common themes in all.

1) Coulter is "highly" intelligent"
2) Coulter attracts a large audience
3) Coulter makes "lots" of money

As I asked last year, after Coulter's public "faux pas": What role has envy in the motives of her accusers?

In years past, Coulter's beauty was also a common theme. Is time taking its customary toll?

Ann's comments are over the top at times but read Civil Behaviors rant, that is far more offensive. Totally hysterical and full of hatred. There can be NO doubt about that. ww

surferdude -- MOI??? PC?

Where do you get that bro?

My only point is that her flaming rhetoric doesn't help conservatives in the fight for the Mighty Middle.

If your position is "fuck the mighty middle," knockyourself out. That's how elections are won.

When I grow up, I want to be as "Perfect" as Hugh.

Luke for Pres ...

Thanks Bill but I really er..... couldn't. Er, let me think about that a moment.

On second thought, Dennis K, Sharpton, Jessie, and many more have made "running" without hope of winning even their families vote quite a money-making adventure.

What I wrote in response applies to Franken any democrat or anyone else. Got it now? If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty you'd acknowledge I condemned any and all "slurs" by both sides.

Ummm, Hugh ... did you read what I wrote or did you just start frothing at the first comment?

I asked, because, in your comment above you agreed that you did precisely what I said that you did in my comment.

You were asked specifically to comment on actions of specific Democrats. You said that you would once Ryan responded to a specific situation involving a Republican.

Ryan clearly and concisely condemned the Republican in question for her actions.

How did you respond? Basically you said that sometimes Democrats are as bad as Republicans.

You didn't answer the question you were asked - you answered the question you wanted to answer.

If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you would admit that.

perssonally, I don't condemn "growling 'fuck you' to a Senator..."

I can think of several who deserve it.

It's called "senatorial courtesy."

Posted by: wavemaker at March 4, 2007 09:56 AM

Thank you.

I started to respond to that one earlier and then thought better of it. With some people it is better to address one point at a time.

Do I use that language? No, I haven't but I have been frustrated enough to think it.

Have I inspired that language? Not to my recollection, but I have no doubt inspired someone else to think that way and may have just forgotten that they said it to me.

Even directed at me, I wouldn't see it as a big deal.

I certainly don't think a comment made with the possible expectation of privacy the same as a statement made in a speech or in an interview on a major news program.

Wavemaker is obviously a Kommiecrat able to read what isn't there and not see the blatent.

Go rock your teacup...

Wavemaker is obviously a Kommiecrat able to read what isn't there and not see the blatent.

Go rock your teacup...

Who cares if Ann Coulter implied that Edwards is gay? Seriously?

He's a pretty boy and has been called "The Breck Girl" for years now.

Implying that Ann Coulter is a transsexual is just as bad but that goes un-noticed because she is on the right and it's ok to attack people on the right. As soon as someone on the right makes a crude joke, all sights are set on them by the media and by extension the rest of the public.

Bottom line: Who Cares? This is Ann Coulter. There are alot worse things said by people in power on the left that go unnoticed and unreported by the vast majority of the media.

How articulate of you serferdude. As one who has served as a conservative in a state legislature, I certainly have never been mistaken for a commie -- but there is always some clueless moron out there willing to take a leap, as reckless as it may be.

Where you come up with your notions I have no idea, unless it's sitting in the ashtray next to you.

I don't know which is more pathetic. That the Left is losing so badly that they have to make a big deal over this - or that John Edwards is losing so badly that he thinks HE needs to use it to raise cash. Wow. Sad, just sad.

Civil I enjoyed your goofy rant. Your employers at The Onion got their money's worth with you.j

BTW, compared to the left and their bitter angry rants, Ann is Emily Post.

When you play with pigs (dems) sometimes you have to get down in the mud yourself.

Interesting post, Jay. Though I don't consider myself part of Ann Coulter's fan club, or even part of the same political camp, I think you've given voice to some of the reluctance I've had about getting worked up over her remarks. The main issues are her right to say what she wants, and her point about having to go to "PC camp". I'm tired of the sanctimonious outrage, and the "ban all unapproved speech" reaction that reinforces a victimization mentality. Politics is a playground sport and people say insulting things all the time.

And then there's the hypocrisy of those who act most offended - which happens on left and right. Just ignore the bombs and bomb-throwers you don't like and spare me the phony outrage, which is really more about moral one-upmanship than real standards of decency, anyway. She said what she said and she's not sorry about it. And if I don't care, that doesn't make me evil or a homophobe, or even a conservative, whatever that is.

The only people who can possibly think Ann Coulter has anything meaningful to say are the sad deluded souls who populate the right and support the horrorific nonsense that passes for intellect on this pathetic "news" and stupid "opinion" site. She spews lies, hate, and death. Maybe you should reflect more carefully on the war criminals who populate the adminstration of Bush the Dumb and Cheney the Evil. Iraq, New Orleans, Walter Reed. Torture, spying, and screw Habeas corpus. Hey - atl east the owners of Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel, Raytheon are getting rich. One more escalation and peace and prosperity will be upon us. Why don't you think about these things in between your pathetic Anna Nicole updates and Britney sightings. Ann Coulter is a tramp of the right wing. And by no means is that sorry ass a hot tramp. Horse-mouthed whore.

Wow, just wow....drop the words "Ann Coulter transvestite" into your google and see how many high profile lefty bloggers have called Ann that.

Everyone is so used to the left saying these things that it doesn't even register any type of news worthiness. I guess it's all equated to that civil "truth to power" stuff from the intellectual left.

Sheesh, the lefties sure do "squeal like pigs" when someone else is giving some back to them. Oh, and John Edwards, you shore got a prudy mouth too.

horrorific nonsense that passes for intellect on this pathetic "news" and stupid "opinion

Thank you for demonstrating the intellectual left's prowess in debate there Marty.

How could anyone compete against.....

~Bush the Dumb and Cheney the Evil~

~Ann Coulter is a tramp of the right wing~

~that sorry ass a hot tramp~

~Horse-mouthed whore~

I surrender to your lefty superiority (too bad it's only self proclaimed)

I agree she's free to say whatever she wants to say. She's an edgy fucking cunt who truly embracess her bitchiness

LMAO!.. Thanks Marty!.. you gave me a great laugh for the day!...LOL.. (He was just being silly before his Mom got home, right?)..*laughing!*

I love Anne Coulter and agree with everything she stands for. Fags have no place in my party, nor do little weenies like John Edwards. Once the commie dems understand that true American's and conservatives like us have no tolerance for their gay ways, they'll get with the program.

Gianni and Jo - you's my peeps.

I think Jay needs to post a sock puppet warning at the start of this thread.

(Somebody left the Troll-Gate open again)

To mikesc and ohiovoter,

You wanted the quote by Ann on killing Clinton, well here it is:
(Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemma) "There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"

I will await your apologies, and your denouncement of Ann.

Sorry ClubRepub, but when being a Republican poser you have to be subtler.

Just like I knew when I saw how many lefties were posting they wished terrorists had killed the Vice President; it was really just Republicans posing as lefties to make them look bad.

Am I right or am I right?

Very well Hugh. Refusal to answer question noted. Window of taking you seriously: Ended.

If you make a demand and its fulfilled you should either put up or shut up. You failed to put up. Fill in the blank.

YOu have year after year of lefty after lefty saying nasty, mean, incendiary, hateful things about anyoen to the right of CHairman MAo, and that, well, that is barely worthy of comment. BUt one person on the extreme fringes of republican commentary makes a nasty statement, THAT is important. And someone saying things like. . .

"I really, really don't want to defend Ann Coulter."

and

"But you never, never, EVER give them anything resembling real power or authority -- even a "moral authority."

and:

"Of course, I think she'd make a lousy Supreme Court JUSTICE, but damn, wouldn't those hearings be fun?"

and

"So no, I'm still not an Ann Coulter fan."

And

"I just wouldn't want to EVER see her with any kind of real power."

Is apparently an apologist. Are you willing, Hugh, to condemn ANY democrat unequivocally who has made comments which are equivalent to those of Coulter? Think carefully now.

Barney, you posted this in the wrong thread.

To mikesc and ohiovoter,

You wanted the quote by Ann on killing Clinton, well here it is:
(Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemma) "There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"

I will await your apologies, and your denouncement of Ann.

Did you do that because you knew that you were misquoting me and thought that you wouldn't get caught if you put it here instead of where it belonged>?

You stated:

Hey nikie, how about Coulter's assignation fantasies of Clinton, or her final solution to the Muslim problem?

I responded:

Hey nikie, how about Coulter's assignation fantasies of Clinton,.....

I have to ask for a link to that one.

As I have previously indicated, I have a pretty low opinion of Coulter already. If she truly expressed an assignation fantasy about Clinton, I HAVE to see it for myself. LOL!

For those (Barney) who don't know what the word "assignation" means ....

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source as·sig·na·tion (ās'ĭg-nā'shən) Pronunciation Key n. An appointment for a meeting between lovers; a tryst. See Synonyms at engagement.

That was the third definition BTW and came from dictionary.com.

So, let's review:

I asked for a link to back up your claim that Coulter had assignation fantasies about Clinton.

You posted a quote (no link - AGAIN) to a statement from Coulter about assassination of Clinton.

You want an apology?

For what?

I did ask you if you meant "assassination" instead of "assignation", but you never answered the question so I assumed that you knew what you were talking about the first time.

As to the rest, "been there, done that and got the t-shirt". I have denounced Coulter several times - as you well know already - in the thread we were having this discussion in originally.

Nice try ohio, if you are so small of a person to not acknowledge that my original comment was correct, and that I did provide the exact quote that you demanded, than go a head hide behind a typo. Go back to the original post, and you will see that I did respond there, and here since this post is more current.

And, I did respond to clarify here:
Now let's look at a quote from Ann:
""We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."

That is a call to murder. Gee I'm sorry it is only a sitting Supreme Court Justice and not the former President. I guess that is OK in your book ohio?

Now go back to another of my follow up post:
"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."
-- Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, August 2, 1999

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."
-- Ann Coulter, George, July 1999 (and you wonder why the magazine folded)

"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."
-- Ann Coulter, This Evening with Judith Regan,FOX News Channel, February 6, 2000

So you see, I responded both ways.

So, are you going to apologize now?

Didnt George die primarily because its publisher/editor was as arrogant as the rest of his family, he flew when he shouldnt have, prolly wanted to be like his uncle and kill an innocent woman, or, in john john's case, 2?

Does fat ted support global warming, and will he and the rest of the killing kennedy's ever publicly encouragr wind farms off the cape?

Ohio, here are your links, as if I just made it up.

Coulter on killing Bill Clinton:
(Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemma) "There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/ann-coulter-at-cpac-on-r_b_15434.html?view=print
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/060611

Coulter mused aloud whether Bill Clinton should have been impeached or murdered, and called for the execution of John Walker Lindh in order to intimidate liberals.)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020923/alterman

I said:

Given the titles (no links, I noticed) that you posted, it strikes me as unlikely that an assignation fantasy exists.

Color me skeptical.

Or did you mean "assassination"?

If that's the case, then you are right. Coulter has a lot in common with those who have called for the assassination of Bush and/or Cheney.

All of them should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: OhioVoter at March 3, 2007 08:49 PM

You replied:

Ohio, I agree, but I am not aware of any leading liberal commentator that is calling for the death of Cheney/Bush.

So when you said you "agreed", you meant what exactly? That I was right to doubt your claim that Coulter had assignation fantasies? That I was right to be skeptical of your claims? That you meant assassination instead of assigation?

Or did you mean that you agreed that all people who called for the assassination of Bush and/or Cheney should be ashamed of themselves? (I put that one in a separate paragraph because I haven't heard you admit so far that ANYONE called for the assassination of Bush and/or Cheney.)

Should I assume that when you wrote "quote" that it was just a typo for "link"? I ask because those two word also mean different things.

I didn't ask for a quote about assassination - I asked for a link about assignations.

Now, if you are admitting that you mispoke earlier and that Coulter never had an assignation fantasy about Clinton, then I have already responded to that. (That quoted comment is above.)

(BTW, I'm not sure why you felt a need to place this in this thread since you also responded in the original thread, but I digress.)

Libtards think its OK to make offensive comments about catholicism and the Blessed Mother, but a satirical comment about faggots is far worse?

OK Ohio, if you want to be obtuse, than go ahead. The more you write, the more you show your immaturity.

Hmm, the more you write, the more you show your maturity, written by one whose sole source of attention is an anonymous blog.

You wanted the quote by Ann on killing Clinton, well here it is:
(Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemma) "There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"

How is that a desire to kill Clinton? Seems like a desire to specifically not kill him for selfish reasons.

1) Coulter is "highly" intelligent"
2) Coulter attracts a large audience
3) Coulter makes "lots" of money

So, she's Clinton without the conviction in a court of law.
-=Mike

Jay,

Well said. Unfortunately too may PC readers can't see the irony of making light of limited free speech.

If we don't speak now...they will silence honest thought.

PEACE

I actually had a liberal acquaintance (under the influence of alcohol) tell me that Ann pisses off liberals because she nails them and their motives and it infuriates em.

Love it. Go Ann Go.

Don't you just love it when "mature" people like barneygoole post. lol

Mullah Cimoc say this stupid bitch have big adam's apple, is it transvestite?

Mullah Cimoc say: click on link for great anti war rap song by an iraki amerikan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mprsqx2VT8M&mode=related&search=

Jay Tea say:

Mullah Cimoc prove Ann Coulter's point perfectly. And Jay Tea's point too.

Oh, and Jay Tea also say "rap music" lost it's first letter -- "c."

J.

The wingnuts making comments here prove, beyond a doubt, that the republican party's( extreme right )is a party of racism, bigotry, sexism and, though not an issue on this post, xenophobic to the extreme. You call yourselves the party of the big tent and that is indeed true. Filled with the racists and bigots and apologists for dredges like Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, Hannity and Savage.

Have a good night.

And Hugh, what exactly is it you are trying to prove with your incessant whining and trolling?

Youre the 3 yr old getting set to bed w/o dessert, right? All you crave is attention, and you'll kick and scream until you get some. Just like most libs.

OK Ohio, if you want to be obtuse, than go ahead. The more you write, the more you show your immaturity

BarneyG2000, just a friendly piece of advice........stop it, just eff'in stop it.

It is waaaaaay to obvious to the casual reader here that you just had your ass handed to you on a silver platter by Ohiovoter and you want everyone reading this thread to believe otherwise. That's wishful thinking on your part only.

It's sort of like watching a fistfight and enjoying watching the loser get pummeled because they deserve it. But after a while you know they had enough and it's time to quit, yet after getting beat the loser keeps on badgering for more.

The only thing left that you have is the threat to "beat someone's fist with your face".

Does any dem here care to compare Ann's use of the word faggot to Charles Rust-Tierney, bleeding heart liberal who was found with all kinds of child pornography, including the sexual torture of kids and toddlers.

Now, history shows that libs dont care very much for children, but does anyone here at least have the balls to not toe the dem party line on this?

Hugh: "The wingnuts making comments here prove, beyond a doubt, that the republican party's( extreme right )is a party of racism, bigotry, sexism and, though not an issue on this post, xenophobic to the extreme. You call yourselves the party of the big tent and that is indeed true. Filled with the racists and bigots and apologists for dredges like Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, Hannity and Savage.

Have a good night."

Me: Obviously coulter was making more of a statement against you freaks of a politically correct nature where you think government should infringe on anything it can, including free speech, to make sure no ones feelings get hurt. She made the point and she made it so that you lefties proved it by reacting to her one sentence.

Look at the city council of new york banning the n-word. It is a horrible word, but they banned speech. Technically that is unconstitutional, but who in their right mind would take a stand for that word? Do you see where i am going with this? They've baneed the n-word, the reaction to the word faggot by someone on the right makes me believe that you would like to restrict that speech. What words are next? The left is supposedly in favor of free speech, but what in all of this indicates any favorability of free speech? I have just cited examples of lefties restricting speech by using the government. I suppose some lefties are going to cite the dixie chick example where right wingers are "restricting speech" albeit the legal system never got involved...

Bring it lefties. Your Democrat party is the party of restrictions and shackles on the common man. Look how they want speech against global warming stifled by removing licenses and calling people deniers that don't go along with their left wing consensus!

Incredible. Just incredible...

Dave:

Ann Coulter and the those endorsing and defending her have every right to say words which prove they are racists, bigots, sexists and/or xenophobes. I don't want her speech banned. I want it posted all over the universe so folks can see what the extreme right is all about.

Gianni, you are on the money re Hugh and Barneygoogle.

I'll just say, to bring the temperature of the discussion down a bit, that they are prissy little bitches, too self unaware to see they've had their heads handed to them.

Is prissy little bitches ok? I refrained from calling them faggots (which they clearly are, by the way). I imagine all this is due to their secret crush on Breck Girl.

Fair enough hugh, but the extreme right doesn't come close to the extreme left by a long shot. The daily kos and democrat underground all by themselves are on display on a daily basis and it would be nice to see the media pick up on some of this instead of one sentence of one thing coulter said. equal coverage would be nice to see on any media outlet.

I don't want her speech banned. I want it posted all over the universe so folks can see what the extreme right is all about

I bet you more than half of the moonbat fringe of John Edwards supporters have called Ann Coulter a transvestite. But I know and everyone else knows he would never call them on the carpet for that type of hateful rhetoric.

You know those "pro-hate speech lefties as long as it's directed at conservatives" are a very, very sensitive bunch and would turn on John Edwards in a heartbeat if he asked them to tone it down.

Hugh didnt think you had the brains or the balls to answer me. Libbies always run n hide(cut n run) when the gooing gets tough.

Maybe you need a guy like S.D. Sen Dan Sutton(D) to babysit you, and a guy like Charles Rust-Tierney to manage the video evidence. Maybe those 2 can help you feel more nloved/eeded, since it seems you get it nowhere else.

Baby Hughy wrote:

"The wingnuts making comments here prove, beyond a doubt, that the republican party's( extreme right )is a party of racism, bigotry, sexism and, though not an issue on this post, xenophobic to the extreme."

BWAAA! HAA! HAA! Oh my side is killing me,LOL.

Ok , I'll play with the bed wetter so he can be pasified and go beddy by. Ready Hughy? Here it goes..... I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?

Nighty night.

Personally, I think giving the Democratic Presidential Candidate Pot a little stir once in awhile will help prevent it from coalescing.

Hugh take your whiny ass and head on over to Huffington Post where they talk about who in the administration they wish had been assasinated this week.

It's freakin oozing with good wishes and love over there.

Moron.

Jay Tea foolishly challenged:

OK, BC, let's go after your first straw man. You say that Amanda Marcotte's quotes were taken "out of context." The ones I saw were fully contextualized -- and that didn't help 'em in the least.

"Fully contextualized" you say, eh? Where? I went rummaging around the usual suspect right wing sites, including this one, and all I could find were the usual barbered, out-of-context snippets with not even one single link to Marcotte's original source pieces. I did find one link to a movie review of hers, but that contained none of the snippets that were circulated far and wide all over the right wing blogosphere. Is this what you consider "fully contextualized"? From Wizbang to Malkin to O'Reilly, the only thing brought up was the same juicy bits with no discussion whatsoever of the original piece they originated from. Ess Tee Are Aye Double-you Space Emm Aye Enn.

Why don't you go back and find one of those quotes and show the "context" in which it wasn't as despicable as it seemed on first blush?

Hmmm...will the "Jesus Cries When Women F*ck" one do? Here's a link to the original piece.

It mocks Texas Democratic Representative Al Edwards for sponsoring and pushing through a bill to restrict "overtly sexually suggestive" cheerleading to more ladylike performances. Edwards brought up religion with his statement, "Satan is not just going to let you walk over and get something."

What really bugged Marcotte was this quote by Edwards: "Girls can get out and do all of these overly sexually performances and we applaud them, and that's not right."

Apparently she took this comment as being a subtle, sexist slam at cheerleaders coming more and more to the forefront as entertainers in their own right (as depicted in the movie "Bring It On") and that Edwards preferred a more traditional role for cheerleaders as being just being subserviant, sideline eye-candy and boy toys for the jocks.

She wrote: "Is it really the applauding about which Edwards is worried? Or it celebrating their performances later with a masturbatory session in his dank basement that drives him to criminalize the cheerleading bump and grind?"

"What has the world come to that the cheerleaders are using their sexuality to get applause for themselves? I remember back in the day when they knew their place and knew that their sexuality was to be directed towards one purpose and one purpose only -- rewarding football players for a job well done with blow jobs. This is what they warned us would happen if Title IX started getting enforced. Now these girls think that their extracurricular activities should be about themselves instead of merely cheering the boys on."

Marcotte tries to make her points via pretty standard techniques among the liberal, intellectual crowd -- mix in scatological, bawdy terms and language to mock ignorant or devious behavior while delving into somewhat serious social, cultural philosophical issues.

The problem with this sort of approach to writing is that it targets a limited audience, the sort who might have subscriptions to the New Yorker or Granta, and often alienates and confuses people who are not familiar or comfortable with this type of smarty-pants banter. It may be standard for an alternative weekly or an intense Cambridge or Berkeley cafe discussion, but not at a Walmart cafeteria or even a downtown financial district lunch spot. On the other hand, Pandagon and its readers seemed suited to Marcotte's prose -- the issue is when Edwards took her out of the world and into one that not not only did not understand, but throws rocks at things it doesn't understand.

LMAO... This is amazing, a so called conservative website buzzing over Ann's WORDS. DO WE ALL need to go to REHAB??!!! as she joked?
I can understand the kiddies at Kos and other lefty troll sites jerking off all over themselves over this story, but WTF...here!!!! Other Red conservative websites going cannibal. Lefty's like Hugh have their head up their arse who cares what they think, but conservatives better understand, the left will not like you NO matter what you say good or BAD. Jay Tea put a nice perspective to this NON-story.

Her problem is, she's become more about about pushing buttons to get a reaction and by doing so, she says alot of dumb things.
Last year Ann said Bill Clinton was gay and also said Al Gore was a fag on one of the talk shows.
The woman lives for attention.

When did people get the idea that telling someone that they were too stupid to understand would be a good way to convince someone to their side of the argument?

I just read the post by BC and find it arrogantly obtuse.

First, he makes the assumption that no one EVER read the entire piece that the quotes came from ... 'well, because ... you now those right-wingers ... duh ... they only know what they Malkin tells them.....'

Then he tries to make the proverbial sow's ear into a silk purse by claiming anyone who doesn't "get" Marcotte is unsophisticated and stupid.

That's the same line of reasoning that was used to claim that Gore 'must have won' the 2000 election - because people who voted for two candidates 'obviously meant' to vote just for Gore - but were too stupid to do it right'.

It couldn't possibly be the fault of Gore - who as a sitting VP in a 'allegedly' great economy - should have won the election without a sweat, but still managed to find a way to make it close.

What he/she - and a heck of a lot of other people - don't understand is that there are a lot of people in this world who are NOT as rabidly partisian as they are. Also - if they got out of the insular world in which they live - they would learn that people in the fly-over states actually do have diverse life-experiences and interests.

The problem is not that those people *don't* understand, but that they do. Marcotte's essay is her opinion and her right to say, but it depends largely on calling the representative the equivalent of a "poopy head". Hardly a devastating wit being employed there.

Spend your time and resources defending this piece as bright and witty and people will leave your campaign in droves. Why - because they aren't going to see *you* as particularly bright.

Instead, treat the voters as intelligent people with divergent opinions - opinions that have value - and they will forgive a lot of mistakes.

I think Hugh managed to bravely run away without once answering me.

Ryan:

lets be clear about one thing. Whether you take me seriously is of no interest to me. But believe me I take wingnuts like you very seriously. Oh and try getting some reading comprehension lessons. God knows you need it on this issue.

"..... is unacceptable and worthy of condemnation whether the speaker be from the left, the middle or the right."

This was my comment oh so many many comments ago. Now go away and try picking a fight with someone else about how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. But try reading and comprehending whatever that person says.

ooops....angels.

Hugh:

The wingnuts making comments here prove, beyond a doubt, that the republican party's( extreme right )is a party of racism, bigotry, sexism and, though not an issue on this post, xenophobic to the extreme. You call yourselves the party of the big tent and that is indeed true. Filled with the racists and bigots and apologists for dredges like Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, Hannity and Savage.

Yes, you're quite above prejudice and labeling groups with a broad brush. I always find it especially funny when someone commits the same grievance they're ranting against... in the very same breath.

hmmm, 107 comments and counting, about someone whose livelihood is based on notoriety.

Yeah, this'll show Ms. Coulter the error of her ways!

She's has no peer in putting down the Socialist Democratic Party of liberals of all stripe. She is HOT

I think Ann's intent was even more simplistic - to point out how much outrage is generated at anti-gay commments while anti-Christian comments were ignored by John Edwards until the media called him on it.

An old hag -- a hateful bottle blonde moron -- you're welcome to her. Gross.

Ann made a fool of herself and every person at the event who applauded her and every person who continues to support such a hideous act of bad taste! She's not even a politician and certainly no scholar. Why was she even a speaker at the event?!

Hugh You are such a hypocrite!! You prove Anns points perfectly.

Good article Jay,
I agree with you that this rehab thing is getting way out of control. Ann is Ann. I want to know why people are getting their pantyhose in a bunch over all this pc crap. Do they think the left will like conservatives if they talk all nice and gooey? They hate conservatives. Conservatives can't play by the lefts rules because they have no rules except the rules they impose on conservatives. Do two wrongs make a right? No. Where was Ann wrong? Just in failing to adhere pc rules.

Bill "big nose" Maher--anyone care to react to what he said . Where is the MSM? Is his remarks ok hughie? Oh I forgot he is a far left wacko. They get a free pss. Shame on me.

Small side note:
I do believe that Washington was referring to Patrick Dempsey with his ill-conceived "F-word". Knight then took offense at the word being deployed in his presence and took it as a veiled reference to his sexuality rather than a schoolyard insult from Washington to Dempsey.

The problem with Anne Coulter as well as all the other conservative screed mongers is that they are not understood for being the cymbal-banging money whore entertainers that they are. Sean, Rush and all the rest are entertainers.. She is an entertainer. People find shock entertaining - watch any of the best-known stand up comics of the day and you will see what I am talking about. However, people take her rhetoric seriously and repeat and regurgitate it as information. The ONE THING I can respect about Atlanta's own Neil Boortz is that he will tell you that he is an entertainer and not a source of objective information. Her kind of verbal violence, while protected by her right to say whatever she apparently wishes, will never do anything to further the American experiment.

Bill "big nose" Maher

Why don't you say what you really mean, bigoted monkey. You "meant" to say "jew."

Fortunately for you, nobody takes you seriously enough to follow up on a bigoted statement.

It's tough sometimes to speak with all the celery hanging in front of you.

Fine. Willy do you specifically condemn Franken and company. .and say that its very disturbing that they have a large and significant audience of liberals and democrats?

YOu seem to think there is some significance, a special significance, to COulter having an audience> WHy is Franken, Maureen DOwd, BIll Maher. . etcetera. .why do THEY have large portions of the left in their camp?

OhioVoter aka The Strawmanator wrote:

When did people get the idea that telling someone that they were too stupid to understand would be a good way to convince someone to their side of the argument?

I dunno -- maybe when someone demonstrates that he/she is too stupid to understand and then channels that stupidity in hostile and malicious smears and attacks, perchance?

If you are going to throw rocks at people for no good reason, don't be surprised when some come flying back and bounce off your head.

The attacks on Marcotte by the right were pretty much at the level of Beavis and Butt-head snickering over "Uranus".

Lorie Byrd for one wrote and posted extensively in regards to Marcotte, including at one point using "her inability to control her filthy hate-spewing mouth" in reference to Marcotte, but go try to find any links to Marcotte's original pieces. Sure, Byrd posted plenty of links to other right sites bashing and mocking Marcotte, but God forbid that she would actually provide the original sources -- perhaps because doing so would have shown how utterly bogus, malicious and stupid the attacks against Marcotte generally were.

BC, you seem to be denying that Marcotte wrote stuff that she herself admitted writing, and which have been direct-linked ad nauseam-- so take another toke and turn up the Dead.

hansel, WTF are you talking about? Look at the freakin picture. He's got a big nose. So did Tip O'Neill fa crissakes. You think he was jewish?

FWIW, I know a half dozen Mahers -- they're all Irish.

Me? I would make her the UN general and that would be some fun. Stop acting so lofty as is she did something horrible. It was a cute kind of joke and thats about it.

FWIW, I know a half dozen Mahers -- they're all Irish.

His mother is Jewish.

Amen brother!

its a shame other so-called conservative bloggers arent in agreement with you. Now conservatives have to pander to the gay crowd to win elections. Its these same bloggers who called Edwards the Breck boy/girl.

Gays can live any way they want, but if they cant take a joke then they should stay withthe dems. It was gay "conservative republican" candidates who lost the 06 election for the party and now it looks like they and those who are sympathetic to the idea of the republican party being an umbrella for all kinds of life-styles and subcultures in the USA, want to do it again.

08 is the republicans party's to loose. if they want to turn off the base big-time, they should stop it asap going after Coulter. why arent they talking about Maher's deathwish for the VP? Yet, instead they compare Coulter to Olbermann(sp?) WTF??!! ...as well as go on a vendetta to get Coulter BANNED!!!!??? again WTF is going on??

08 is the republicans party's to loose.

Jay,

I read your post.

Bomb-throwers (euphemistically) are okay?

It's "okay" to be an asshole?

It sounds like you're defending bomb-throwing assholes.

Are you an asshole Jay?

Would it be okay with you if your partner or your brother or sister were an asshole?

I think you said "most people...are assholes".

You know what? NO WE'RE NOT.

It's true that you can't waste valuable time calling people on their assholeishness.

But assholes should be ostrisized, not celebrated and praised for their wonderfully courageous bomb-throwing.

Your relativism needs some grooming.

PS: What I wonder is why Ann Coulter doesn't mind admitting that she watches Grey's Anatomy.

- Rich Stadler
Columbus, Ohio

PS I Luv all the psuedo-cons posting the CPAC speach(es) of Reagan, and how respectful he was at the CPAC podium...what a bunch of smoke and mirrors these gay panderers are trying to sell.

Why dont they quote how Reagan joked before a presidential radio address about dropping nukes on the USSR!!!! Reagan was human and so is Coulter! they are allowed to make satirical bloopers, and/or commentary/ jokes!

DID REAGAN APOLOGIZE FOR HIS BLOOPER?!! NOOOO!!!! DID IT SHOW A SIDE OF HIM THAT WASNT PERFECT? YOU BET! DID IT GET SOME RESULTS?! YESSIR! AND HOW ABOUT BUSH SR??

QUOTES:
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

__President Reagan on live radio, August 1984

Talking about Geraldine Ferraro, Vice President George Bush bragged that "We tried to kick a little ass last night" and it made the wire service.

oh and the next time the VP drops the F-bomb I want to hear all these "conservative" grand inquisitors go after him to resign.

please.....

OhioVoter aka The Strawmanator wrote:

When did people get the idea that telling someone that they were too stupid to understand would be a good way to convince someone to their side of the argument?

I dunno -- maybe when someone demonstrates that he/she is too stupid to understand and then channels that stupidity in hostile and malicious smears and attacks, perchance?

If you are going to throw rocks at people for no good reason, don't be surprised when some come flying back and bounce off your head.

Well, I'm not sure why you feel the need to channel your hostility into smears and attacks but that is your choice. I recommend that you keep ice on hand for your head, however.

BTW, how many people have you won over to your point of view with your hostility and by calling others too stupid to understand?

OV, the objective is not to win anybody over -- it is just a simple-minded exercise in asserting one's false sense of superiority to an audience that will, in his mind, forever be wrong. What a perfect world to live in -- I am right and nobody here can convince me I'm wrong.

You're really comparing the mother of a soldier who gave his life to our country to a spoon-fed cornell grad, braindead whore?

Wow, right wingers are stupid, lol.