I don't believe that she believes he is a homosexual man. Do you think she does?

At least your honest enough to admit that "faggot" doesn't always mean gay.
It like pulling teeth around here to get people to acknowledge that.

Coulter said the " F word " was meant as a " schoolyard taunt ".
I totally disagree with her on this.
She's backpeddlin faster than Humpty Dumpty before he decided to
eat some crow on the infamous wall of Shame.
I've never heard the word used in that fashion.
Coulter's latest PARSING also deals with her intrinsic value
as a prognosticator of Syllogism's.
She is in effect trying to draw upon a predicate of the conclusion.
That the major premise is general and the minor particle,except
in HER leading assumption that beckons a SORITES.
It's Coulters' exclusive Literary device which exempts her
{also Literally} from most critique,since Slick Willy started this
Whole nonsense of parsing of words,like the meaning of " Is " !
Hooray for her.
Take that You Doofus Drat Dunderbrains.
You deserve nothing Simpler.

At least your honest enough to admit that "faggot" doesn't always mean gay.


Why of coooooooooooourse it doesn't!

I'll bet that Ms Coulter was --in reality-- simply noting that Mr Edwards is a bundle of sticks and branches.

Makes perfect sense.

(well, it makes as much sense as claiming that people in this country commonly use the word faggot to mean something other than 'homosexual')

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Freethinker]Why of coooooooooooourse it doesn't!

I'll bet that Ms Coulter was --in reality-- simply noting that Mr Edwards is a bundle of sticks and branches.

Makes perfect sense.

(well, it makes as much sense as claiming that people in this country commonly use the word faggot to mean something other than 'homosexual')

I only wish I could alliterate enough faggots on top yer head,in hopes
of beatin sense,where there is little.Ta Nun.

I have used the word fag and faggot since the Fifth Grade (mostly then than now) and not to mean gay.
I don't think your poll of one hundred matters. What matters is what she meant when she said it, don't you think?

She knows he's married, has kids and has probably never been in a homosexual relationship.
Do you honestly think she meant "gay"

Honestly Mertz.

First of all, on Glen Beck's show she didn't say her use of the word in this case wasn't to call him gay...she said "the word faggot is not a slur" then went on to say it means "weak". That may be a definition used by a small percentage of the people in America who use the word, but for her and yourself to try to act like "weak" is THE definition is foolish.

No, I don't think she actually thinks Edwards is gay...that doesn't mean she wasn't trying to insult him by calling him gay. Besides, she knows the word "faggot" is a slur, otherwise there is no way she could have made the joke, since the punchline was "you have to go into rehab for using the word faggot" (refering to the actor from Grey's Anatomy who called a gay actor a faggot, and then checked into rehab).

Yes, it matters what she meant, not what she said. But when you use a word like faggot, good luck trying to convince people you were using some obscure definition of the word. Since you think it matters what someone means, not what what they say, why did you try to misrepresent Mahr's post 9-11 comment? You say he said "our troops weren't brave"...he never said that about our "troops". If you've ever seen him explain what he MEANT, he was referring to the way our government wages war.

1. In an unemotional debate setting she doesn't whine about how she is questioned. Her complaint is that she is misrepresented (see Dhrama as an example).

2. Just using these fora as a microcosm, how many complaints are there about Bill Maher vs. Ann Coulter. Her scrutiny is far greater than his.

1. The only time I've ever heard of "Dhrama" has been its mention in this thread the last two days. I have no idea what Dhrama is, and I'm going to assume its some unreliable website, therefore I'm uninterested in their spin. The only two places I've seen the Ann Coulter clip was on CNN and my local news and they both played the entire quote.

EDIT: I just realized "Dhrama" is a person on this website (sorry). Now I'm even less impressed with this point. I thought someone was claiming a website or news agency was misquoting Coulter, not a person on a message board".

2. Again, Mahr's conservative guests say pretty bad things (as do liberals) on his show with no scrutiny. But they'd receive scrutiny if they said them on GMA? My point is, liberals receive scrutiny for remarks they make, as I've pointed out...Mahr got fired, Imus, Dixie Chicks, Rosie O'Donnel was on the View for less than a year and seemed to be scutinized almost every day...or did I just imagine all this?

Borg,

I am surprised you consider the word liberal to be an ad hominem. Is there a word or phrase you would prefer that people use when referring to those greatly to the left of center when discussing issues? Perhaps you would rather have people like Dharmabum and Freethinker called Mugperks, Twizzles, or some other made up word rather than the horrid word liberal. Please post the word you most prefer.

Ann Coulter skewers Mugperks. She does so in a particulary caustic manner. Mugperks and Twizzles despise her for this. There are those on the left who do the same thing to conservatives and these people are heralded as incisive wits by those same Mugperks and Twizzles. You don't seem to be able to see the disconnect there. Why are nasty and caustic comments made by one person so much more egrigious than those made by another person? Why is Coulter so horrid while Maher is simply someone entertaining the masses?

I have read all of Coulter's books and while I don't agree with her on everything she says I find them quite entertaining. I think Coulter uses words to cudgel and slice Mugperks and Twizzles and since I find those people to be laughable in a scary sort of way I will continue enjoying her books, her news articles and her interviews.

I find it a bit funny that when I agree with you I am, "logical frogger", and when I disagree with you I am, "crazy emotional frogger".

Suddenly, you've turned into a closed-minded, partisan hack
Hey, what's wrong with that?

"Colbert does it, O'Reilly does it, I do it...Yes Borg, it's you."

"I know. Somehow...I've always known."

"Then you know why I must do it."

"No! Evak, run away, FAR away. If you must be a fair-minded voting citizen, then leave this place. I wish I could go with you."

"No, you don't. You've always been ignorant and pugnacious."

"But, why must you be an idiot too?"

"Because...it feels good. I've felt
it. It won't turn me to the Emp, err...Bush. I
can attack him freely, and I've no obligation to be reasonable to attract people to this good side. I don't have to try."

*Evak leaves*

Silence...

*Sparky walks in dressed as Han Solo*

"What's going on Borg?"

"I can't tell you..."

"You could tell Evak is that who you could tell?"

"I..."

"Wha?"

"I'm sorry. Hold me."

Sparky and Borg have a tender embrace amongst the trees and bridges of the Ewok Village.

End scene.

Borg,

I am surprised you consider the word liberal to be an ad hominem. Is there a word or phrase you would prefer that people use when referring to those greatly to the left of center when discussing issues? Perhaps you would rather have people like Dharmabum and Freethinker called Mugperks, Twizzles, or some other made up word rather than the horrid word liberal. Please post the word you most prefer.

Ann Coulter skewers Mugperks. She does so in a particulary caustic manner. Mugperks and Twizzles despise her for this. There are those on the left who do the same thing to conservatives and these people are heralded as incisive wits by those same Mugperks and Twizzles. You don't seem to be able to see the disconnect there. Why are nasty and caustic comments made by one person so much more egrigious than those made by another person? Why is Coulter so horrid while Maher is simply someone entertaining the masses?

I have read all of Coulter's books and while I don't agree with her on everything she says I find them quite entertaining. I think Coulter uses words to cudgel and slice Mugperks and Twizzles and since I find those people to be laughable in a scary sort of way I will continue enjoying her books, her news articles and her interviews.

I find it a bit funny that when I agree with you I am, "logical frogger", and when I disagree with you I am, "crazy emotional frogger".

******************************HuH ?
Say all of that over again.real quickly THREE TIMES.
Then,make a WiSh.

1. First of all, on Glen Beck's show
2. but for her and yourself to try to act like "weak" is THE definition is foolish.
3. No, I don't think she actually thinks Edwards is gay...
4. that doesn't mean she wasn't trying to insult him by calling him gay.
5. ....why did you try to misrepresent Mahr's post 9-11 comment? You say he said "our troops weren't brave"...he never said that about our "troops".
6. If you've ever seen him explain what he MEANT, he was referring to the way our government wages war.1. Who was talking about Glenn Beck? Not me.

2. Again, you confuse me with Glenn Beck. I said effete nerd.
You seem to be saying here that there is no other meaning to fag.

3. Finally.

4. .... which she knows he isn't. Hmmmmm....

5. Here's his quote (which you could have posted just as easily): "We have been cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

6. "We" (you, me and President Bush) are not the ones lobbing cruise missiles. He is talking about individual terrorists and he is talking about individuals in our military. If he wants to spin it after the fact, you can accept his re-interpretation if you like.

If he was referring to al Qaeda tactics and about our tactics then I would think he was referring to how our nation wages war. But that's not what he's saying here.

Why of coooooooooooourse it doesn't!

I'll bet that Ms Coulter was --in reality-- simply noting that Mr Edwards is a bundle of sticks and branchesThat's not the definition to which I was referring.
Right about now Dhrama would be insulting your reading comprehension.

Mahr got fired, Imus, Dixie Chicks, Rosie O'Donnel was on the View for less than a year and seemed to be scutinized almost every day...or did I just imagine all this?Again, just look at this website as a micricosm.
Of all of these who get the most scrutiny, the most nasty comments and the most bile directed toward them?

1. Who was talking about Glenn Beck? Not me.

2. Again, you confuse me with Glenn Beck. I said effete nerd.
You seem to be saying here that there is no other meaning to fag.

3. Finally.

4. .... which she knows he isn't. Hmmmmm....

5. Here's his quote (which you could have posted just as easily): "We have been cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

6. "We" (you, me and President Bush) are not the ones lobbing cruise missiles. He is talking about individual terrorists and he is talking about individuals in our military. If he wants to spin it after the fact, you can accept his re-interpretation if you like.

If he was referring to al Qaeda tactics and about our tactics then I would think he was referring to how our nation wages war. But that's not what he's saying here.

1. Ummm, I was. I mentioned Ann Coulter's comment (on Beck's show last week) where she said "faggot is not a slur", which I find to be a lie, which makes it hard to believe other excuses she makes about her use of the word. We were talking about her use of the word here, weren't we?

3 & 4. So, you don't think someone can call someone a faggot as a way to insult them, even though they don't actually believe they are gay???? :confused:

5 & 6. "You, me and the President"...take out the "you and me" part and you've got it. He was talking about the administrations.

If he wants to spin it after the fact, you can accept his re-interpretation if you like.

Thanks for openly admiting your hypocrisy. When Mahr explains what he meant, its "spin". When Coulter does it, its "it matters what she meant, not what she said". Of course I can probably be considered hypocritical on this issue too.

Ms. Coulter was referring to the fact that Mr. Edwards is an effete, prissy little man who spends far too much on his hairdo.

I am surprised you consider the word liberal to be an ad hominem.
Beg pardon? I was think of crybabies, etc.
Ann Coulter skewers Mugperks. She does so in a particulary caustic manner. Mugperks and Twizzles despise her for this. There are those on the left who do the same thing to conservatives and these people are heralded as incisive wits by those same Mugperks and Twizzles. You don't seem to be able to see the disconnect there. Why are nasty and caustic comments made by one person so much more egrigious than those made by another person? Why is Coulter so horrid while Maher is simply someone entertaining the masses?
While I agree with you, don't you realize you're doing the same thing? Calling Ann Coulter good while calling Bill Maher bad?
I have read all of Coulter's books and while I don't agree with her on everything she says I find them quite entertaining. I think Coulter uses words to cudgel and slice Mugperks and Twizzles and since I find those people to be laughable in a scary sort of way I will continue enjoying her books, her news articles and her interviews.
And you find Bill Maher repulsive because he makes personal attacks. Uh huh.
I find it a bit funny that when I agree with you I am, "logical frogger", and when I disagree with you I am, "crazy emotional frogger".
Nope. Now you're being more logical, even though I still disagree with you. When you're emotional, you launch into trite, tired, unimaginative tirades like calling liberals "whiners" and "crybabies" (nope, never heard those before). Though I must admit that you're doing a fairly good job at building a straw man of me to attack.

Coulter definitely meant to say "faggot"... no argument there, and i think it's pretty obvious what definition of the word was intended.

Borg,

I'm not calling Ann Coulter good and Bill Maher bad. Both are political commentators and good and bad don't enter into the equation. I am saying that since I agree more with Coulter I personally find her more enjoyable than I find Maher. Those of a liberal persuasion probably feel just the opposite.

When I hear or read something Coulter has said skewering liberals I chuckle. I also think she is quite inciteful. Her description of the Jersey Ladies was right on as far as I am concerned as was her description of Edwards.

Those who lean more left than me will find Ann Coulter annoying because she is goring some of their personal oxen. Since she isn't goring any of my oxen I can smile while she throws brickbats at people I feel deserve to have them thrown at them.

Borg,

I'm not calling Ann Coulter good and Bill Maher bad. Both are political commentators and good and bad don't enter into the equation. I am saying that since I agree more with Coulter I personally find her more enjoyable than I find Maher. Those of a liberal persuasion probably feel just the opposite.

When I hear or read something Coulter has said skewering liberals I chuckle. I also think she is quite inciteful. Her description of the Jersey Ladies was right on as far as I am concerned as was her description of Edwards.

Those who lean more left than me will find Ann Coulter annoying because she is goring some of their personal oxen. Since she isn't goring any of my oxen I can smile while she throws brickbats at people I feel deserve to have them thrown at them.
I find her annoying because she's a shrill bitch. She isn't goring any of my oxen. Edwards is a socialist, or at least nearly so, and thus I would never vote for him. But her calling him a faggot is just juvenile. I don't find it amusing, I just find it petty.

I find her annoying because she's a shrill bitch. She isn't goring any of my oxen. Edwards is a socialist, or at least nearly so, and thus I would never vote for him. But her calling him a faggot is just juvenile. I don't find it amusing, I just find it petty.

agreed

Differences of opinion are what makes horse races and politics possible. I think she is funny. Sue me. I could say the politic thing and join those condemning her but that would be a lie. I happen to like Ann Coulter and I will not deny it.

I also think she is quite inciteful.Ha ha ha!!

I'm pretty sure you meant "insightful" but this is much more fitting.

Freudian slip much? :D

Ha ha ha!!

I'm pretty sure you meant "insightful" but this is much more fitting.

Freudian slip much? :D

Furgit the Freud,already.
I'm the expert,there.
I'm wonderin about yer profile "pic".>?
All I need is a hint.?

Differences of opinion are what makes horse races and politics possible. I think she is funny. Sue me. I could say the politic thing and join those condemning her but that would be a lie. I happen to like Ann Coulter and I will not deny it.

If Coulter wasn't pugnaciously unforgiving in her constant Liberal
Bashing,like Limbaugh,then No one wood even care place
a bet on her in a respectable Dog Race.

Furgit the Freud,already.
I'm the expert,there.
I'm wonderin about yer profile "pic".>?
All I need is a hint.?If'n you hadn't WASTED yer youth
watchin all the old movies and
had watched the TV like most
of the red blooded should maybe
you'd say I know nothing too.?

If'n you hadn't WASTED yer youth
watchin all the old movies and
had watched the TV like most
of the red blooded should maybe
you'd say I know nothing too.?

If I wasn't an Obsolete Man,I'd say that profile "pic"
slightly resembles a Saintly,overly fed Alan Hale Sr.,
he does.

If'n you hadn't WASTED yer youth
watchin all the old movies and
had watched the TV like most
of the red blooded should maybe
you'd say I know nothing too.?

Oh ! yeah... Captain Kangaroo !

Dhrama, I can honestly say I don't know what you're talking about.

Not suprising since you don't know what you are talking about either.

:thumbs:

Dharma mis-reporting something... what a lie!!!

I corrected that for you.

You're welcome.

:thumbs:


But listening to the entire quote makes the excerpt that all liberals are quoting seem a lot less offensive.

No, it really doesn't. Either way she is saying she wishes he is killed in a terrorist assasination.

:rolleyes:

Oh ! yeah... Captain Kangaroo !That's a better guess, but ...


http://www.wklh.com/pod/PODCAST_IMAGE_110.jpg

That's a better guess, but ...


http://www.wklh.com/pod/PODCAST_IMAGE_110.jpg

Oh ! Schlutz .... " I NOooooooooooooooo NuT DiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiK ! "

1. So, you don't think someone can call someone a faggot as a way to insult them, even though they don't actually believe they are gay????
2. Thanks for openly admiting your hypocrisy. When Mahr explains what he meant, its "spin". When Coulter does it, its "it matters what she meant, not what she said". 1. Of course it's an insult. He's "weak" and he's an "effete nerd". Obviously she was insulting him, and obviously she doesn't think he's gay.
I hope this is what you're asking me in that sentence.

2. Big difference.
I don't think Ann Coulter went back to explain her "faggot" statement because the only way it could be misinterpreted is if you insist that fag always, only, definitively and without exception means gay. Which just isn't the case.
And with the case of the notorious John Edwards must die statement, all she did was reprint the entire statement, which had been severely abridged, thus altering the original context.
Maher on the other hand, knew he made a statement that sounded like a criticism of the troops (I think intentionally - if not sincerely then for shock value). He had to go back later and say what he really, really, really meant.

I corrected that for you.

You're welcome.

:thumbs:

cute, but hey if the only way you can get people to say good things about you is to misquote them, I guess that's pretty pathetic.


No, it really doesn't. Either way she is saying she wishes he is killed in a terrorist assasination.

:rolleyes:

I could easily ring you up on some out-of-context wording.

Dharmabum:I.. wish.. George Bush.. gets... killed in a terrorist assassination

Did all of those words come out of your mouth? Yes they did, I guess that means you wish that, you sick bastard.

Dhrama is the king of taking parts of people sentences ( he has done it to me at least 2 times) and making it appear they said something they did not. i dont even want to hear his crap!

1. Of course it's an insult. He's "weak" and he's an "effete nerd". Obviously she was insulting him, and obviously she doesn't think he's gay.
I hope this is what you're asking me in that sentence.

2. Big difference.
I don't think Ann Coulter went back to explain her "faggot" statement because the only way it could be misinterpreted is if you insist that fag always, only, definitively and without exception means gay. Which just isn't the case.
And with the case of the notorious John Edwards must die statement, all she did was reprint the entire statement, which had been severely abridged, thus altering the original context.
Maher on the other hand, knew he made a statement that sounded like a criticism of the troops (I think intentionally - if not sincerely then for shock value). He had to go back later and say what he really, really, really meant.

1. No, what I was saying was that you can attempt to insult someone you know is straight by calling them a faggot (and intend it to mean "gay").

2. She DID go back and explain her "faggot" statement. On Glen Becks show they played the clip and bleeped it when she said "faggot". She said "why did you bleep that, they don't bleep such-and-such when its said (I forget what example she used). Then Beck said "that's because one is a slur (refering to faggot) and the other isn't". Thats when she went on to EXPLAIN how faggot isn't a slur and it means "weak". Again, look at the context of the joke...she knows it means "gay". She knew she made a statement that sounded like a slur (I think intentionally - if not sincerely then for shock value). She had to go back later and say what she really, really, really, meant. :) (sorry , had to do it)

As for Mahr's statement, first of all he used the word "we". Unless he has been in the military, I doesn't seem he was refering to the troops. I believe he said "we" in reference to America as a whole when it comes to the way we fight wars which is not decided by "the troops". Most specifically he was referring to the Gulf War since at the time he made the comment that was the most recent war we fought and definitely the only war that really fits the "lobbing missles from 2,000 miles away" comment.

1. No, what I was saying was that you can attempt to insult someone you know is straight by calling them a faggot (and intend it to mean "gay").

2. She DID go back and explain her "faggot" statement. On Glen Becks show they played the clip and bleeped it when she said "faggot". She said "why did you bleep that, they don't bleep such-and-such when its said (I forget what example she used). Then Beck said "that's because one is a slur (refering to faggot) and the other isn't". Thats when she went on to EXPLAIN how faggot isn't a slur and it means "weak". Again, look at the context of the joke...she knows it means "gay". She knew she made a statement that sounded like a slur (I think intentionally - if not sincerely then for shock value). She had to go back later and say what she really, really, really, meant. :) (sorry , had to do it)

As for Mahr's statement, first of all he used the word "we". Unless he has been in the military, I doesn't seem he was refering to the troops. I believe he said "we" in reference to America as a whole when it comes to the way we fight wars which is not decided by "the troops". Most specifically he was referring to the Gulf War since at the time he made the comment that was the most recent war we fought and definitely the only war that really fits the "lobbing missles from 2,000 miles away" comment.
*************************************
You a Liberal,all right.A Parsing,singular,equivocating pile of
coulda,shoulda,woulda and more.A festering sore on the body
politic,beholdin to Spin,perfunctory Malice and little in the way of
good old-fashioned Horse sense.
That's what marks the left.They fully realize their base is merely
an amalgam of guttersnipe whoresom pettiness,that betwixt the
logic of Kookiness in alongside that of begrudging expectoration.
So now I am to believe that Maher is simply allowed to rationalize
his comment over the use of " We ".
You Leftists aren't even responsible enough to feed goldfish,let
alone sappy,likened humanoids.Witch is what y'are.

I could easily ring you up on some out-of-context wording.

Dharmabum:I.. wish.. George Bush.. gets... killed in a terrorist assassination


How typical of you, when you cannot make a relevent point, make up lies.
:rolleyes:

Dhrama is the king of taking parts of people sentences ( he has done it to me at least 2 times) and making it appear they said something they did not. i dont even want to hear his crap!


You are such a cry baby. All I do is highlight the relevent points of what you say.

You just hate having your own words being used against you.

:rolleyes:

*************************************
You a Liberal,all right.A Parsing,singular,equivocating pile of
coulda,shoulda,woulda and more.A festering sore on the body
politic,beholdin to Spin,perfunctory Malice and little in the way of
good old-fashioned Horse sense.
That's what marks the left.They fully realize their base is merely
an amalgam of guttersnipe whoresom pettiness,that betwixt the
logic of Kookiness in alongside that of begrudging expectoration.
So now I am to believe that Maher is simply allowed to rationalize
his comment over the use of " We ".
You Leftists aren't even responsible enough to feed goldfish,let
alone sappy,likened humanoids.Witch is what y'are.

Since you don't know much, I'll inform you. I am liberal on many issues, but I'm pretty moderate (I'm in favor of lower taxes, I don't have a problem with the war on terror, I don't have problem with the death penalty). I am no more defending and rationalizing Mahr's comment the way conservatives do Coulter's comments. And Mahr didn't rationalize his use of the word "we", I did. It was just a minor observation I noticed, but I base my opinion of what he meant based on hearing him explain what he meant on more than one occasion. Hmmm, kind of like how you guys rationalize the use of the word "faggot"...oh my god, were not much different from each other as you thought.

Now, this time lets see if you are capable of debate without name-calling. And its not a crime to use your space-bar after punctuation. Is this what all writing is gonna be like in 10 years as people grow up learning to type via text message? God, I'm sounding old.

It was quite obvious to any but the most partisan that Coulter meant Edwards is effete not that he is homosexual just as when someone says, "That's so gay", they don't mean the subject being discussed is homosexual but instead is lame.

ROFL!!!

Now according to the hyper-partisan Frogger, if anyone takes Ann Coulter at face value they must be a partisan.

:rolleyes:

Or logical.....:rolleyes:

You calling another poster here "partisan" is truly funny, Dharma -

That said, I've seen Frogger oppose views that dyed-in-the-wool republicans never would (or, as it pans out in conversation, would believe to the contrary, at a minimum). Outside of that, I've never seen you say anything where you're not fellating some ultra-liberal pundit or extolling some mundane talking point of your party including (but not limited to) endorsing Nuevo-communism a la "socialism". In short, pal - you're a one-track recording; the BIGGEST partisan hack here (outside of FT, that is - but at least he's got an excuse; he lives in Mississippi and he's nuts). Well, maybe you're batting .500 here, but that little fact doesn't change the obvious now, does it?

Hack.

Since you don't know much, I'll inform you. I am liberal on many issues, but I'm pretty moderate (I'm in favor of lower taxes, I don't have a problem with the war on terror, I don't have problem with the death penalty). I am no more defending and rationalizing Mahr's comment the way conservatives do Coulter's comments. And Mahr didn't rationalize his use of the word "we", I did. It was just a minor observation I noticed, but I base my opinion of what he meant based on hearing him explain what he meant on more than one occasion. Hmmm, kind of like how you guys rationalize the use of the word "faggot"...oh my god, were not much different from each other as you thought.

Now, this time lets see if you are capable of debate without name-calling. And its not a crime to use your space-bar after punctuation. Is this what all writing is gonna be like in 10 years as people grow up learning to type via text message? God, I'm sounding old.

Oh ! Go find a suitable " space-bar " yer own to chew the Cud Wits.
At least When I post,there is some evidence,That It was :
Me,me,me,me.... Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !.
Juts so's knowed Martians,we'll git all mixed-up like in the -
Twilight Zone episode of :
Hocus-Pocus and Frisby {1962}

No, what I was saying was that you can attempt to insult someone you know is straight by calling them a faggot (and intend it to mean "gay").
I don't know. I'd think that if I called an Irishman a wetback or a black guy a guineau it would sort of roll off their backs to the point it wouldn't even be an insult.

I don't think a person could be offended by being called a slur of something he's not.
But since I believe it was meant to be insulting, I think she was going for the meaning that more accurately describes him.

But since I believe it was meant to be insulting, I think she was going for the meaning that more accurately describes him.
LOL - no shit...

This is beginning to remind me of FT's defense of Ahmadinejad.

This is beginning to remind me of FT's defense of Ahmadinejad.All he did was threaten to annihalite a nation. Had he called someone a fag, FT would never have defended him.

He has his standards you know.

This is beginning to remind me of FT's defense of Ahmadinejad.

Yes, it does.

You calling another poster here "partisan" is truly funny, Dharma -


:rolleyes:

So says the rightwing wacko hypocrite who repeats rightwing iedology so readily that you abandon all pretense of any morals in order to tow the rightwing line.
For example:

"I'd rather die than have my money extorted by a group of bleeding hearts for people I'd rather see dead and buried."

Fuck off Prat. You and Frogger are cut from similar cloth, you are bigger partisan hacks than I could ever dream of being.

:stfu

Fuck off Prat.
I expect nothing less, Dhrama.

:@@: I love Ann Coulter. She is one of the founders of The Cornell Review and is a member of the Heritage Society.

She pulls no punches so liberals hate her.

Three cheers for Ann Coulter. Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!
She was fired from MSNBC in 1997 when she verbally attacked a vietnam vet on air. She was also dropped from the National Review in 2002 for slandering the publication on the national talk show circuit. Plus her verbal attacks on victims of 9/11 is unforgivable! Not to mention her negative comments on women's groups and muslims!:@@:

:@@:
Plus her verbal attacks on victims of 9/11 is unforgivable! I remember a left wing professor calling the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns" but I don't recall any of Ann Coulter's victim attacks.

Originally Posted by LionelHutz
This is beginning to remind me of FT's defense of Ahmadinejad.

All he (Ahmadinejad) did was threaten to annihalite a nation.

He made no such threat.

But don't let that get in the way of your incessant lies.


Had he called someone a fag, FT would never have defended him.

He has his standards you know.

Standards --when it comes to lying in order to promote your fucking bullshit version of what happened-- are something that you evidently do NOT possess.

I remember a left wing professor calling the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns" but I don't recall any of Ann Coulter's victim attacks.

Yeah. Riiiiiiiiight.

I'm sure you have never once heard a thing about Ann Coulter's proclamations that the the widows from New Jersey were glad that their spouses were killed on 9/11, because they were "making money" from those spouse's deaths, and that they were "enjoying the deaths of their husbands" because it was getting them media attention.

I don't think a person could be offended by being called a slur of something he's not.

Thats an interesting line of thinking. So none of the troops could have been offended by Bill Mahr's comments unless they actually are cowards?

But since I believe it was meant to be insulting, I think she was going for the meaning that more accurately describes him.

Again, by that rationale, for you to believe Bill Mahr was trying to insult the troops he would've been giving an accurate description of them???

How typical of you, when you cannot make a relevent point, make up lies.
:rolleyes:

Um, i'm just doing what you did, proving a point at how stupid it is.

and geez i swear everything you accuse people of is exactly what you are, is this some sort of defense mechanism?

I'm sure you have never once heard a thing about Ann Coulter's proclamations that the the widows from New Jersey...... "Victims" refers to the people who died there, thus my confusion.
Though those wives are in a sense victims, to say Ann Coulter attacked victims of 9/11 is somewhat misleading.

Secondly, once the Jersey wives went on cable news shows and recited the left's talking points and politicized themselves, they left the realm of mourners and became pundits. That leaves you vulnerable to criticism.
Maybe you didn't like Ann Coulter's style of criticism, but they asked for it.

1. Thats an interesting line of thinking. So none of the troops could have been offended by Bill Mahr's comments unless they actually are cowards?
2. Again, by that rationale, for you to believe Bill Mahr was trying to insult the troops he would've been giving an accurate description of them???1. Very different. Coward is an opinion, gay is not.

2. Same answer.

If Maher called the troops filthy pipefitters or nasty shepherds you'd have a better analogy to Ann Coulter calling Edwards gay.
If you are called by a word everyone knows doesn't describe you, you won't worry about people believing it.

once the Jersey wives went on cable news shows and recited the left's talking points and politicized themselves, they left the realm of mourners and became pundits.

I truly doubt that you or any other person on the planet can prove that they were *reciting the left's talking points* and not simply saying what they genuinely felt, but I agree with you that they 'left the realm of mourners and became pundits'.

That leaves you vulnerable to criticism.

Absolutely. No problem with that.


Maybe you didn't like Ann Coulter's style of criticism, but they asked for it.

What I "didn't like" (to put it mildly) about Ms Coulter's "criticisms" is that she went on national television and made bombastic, preposterous claims (i.e., she slandered the people she was talking about) about people for which she could provide ZERO proof.

To this very day, Ms Coulter has NO idea whatsoever if the widows she was slandering were or are **enjoying their husband's deaths**.

I would submit that it seems highly unlikely that the women in question were joyful that they had to bury their husbands.......yet Ms Coulter is free to defame people and ruin their character by spewing her hateful venom on the national airwaves.

:rolleyes:

So says the rightwing wacko hypocrite who repeats rightwing iedology so readily that you abandon all pretense of any morals in order to tow the rightwing line.
Psssst - the proper locution is "toe the line", dipshit. That aside, I am very conservative, but I hardly toe the "rightwing" line...

I'm for stem cell research, I'm pro-choice, I'm for gay marriage and adoption, I'm for a stricter border policy, and I'm disgusted with my party's current spending habits.
For example:

"I'd rather die than have my money extorted by a group of bleeding hearts for people I'd rather see dead and buried."
Most conservatives wouldn't say that. Don't believe me, give me another example of some "rightwing wacko hypocrite" who used those words verbatim, and we'll talk. Where the "hypocrite" part came from, I haven't a clue.
You and Frogger are cut from similar cloth, you are bigger partisan hacks than I could ever dream of being.
You keep telling yourself that.

1. To this very day, Ms Coulter has NO idea whatsoever if the widows she was slandering were or are **enjoying their husband's deaths**.
2. I would submit that it seems highly unlikely that the women in question were joyful that they had to bury their husbands
1. This is from CommonDreams.org, a website oft-quoted by the lefts on these fora (this is from a pro-Jersey Girl article): "The 33-year-old widow of portfolio manager Ron Breitweiser, who died in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, gleefully shared with the Daily News...."
Maybe it means nothing, but I found it interesting.
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:lbDyGkyNiioJ:www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0513-05.htm+%22jersey+girls%22+political+statements&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

2. I don't exactly think that's what she said.

1. Very different. Coward is an opinion, gay is not.

I don't see how that makes a distinction. The point is, calling someone something the are not CAN be, and IS, a method insult...especially when that something is considered to be a bad thing by many, and even worse when you use a slur version of the word. In case you're not following me, is the word nigger only an insult to niggers? People can use the word towards someone who is not even black, and that person won't be as offended as a black person (or maybe not at all), but the person using the word can still be trying to insult the person.


If Maher called the troops filthy pipefitters or nasty shepherds you'd have a better analogy to Ann Coulter calling Edwards gay.
If you are called by a word everyone knows doesn't describe you, you won't worry about people believing it.

Even though you say being a coward is an opinion, everyone knows the troops aren't cowards, so where is the insult?

I'm not claiming Edwards was offended or worries people will believe it, but that doesn't mean Coulter was not trying to offend by calling him gay.

1. Even though you say being a coward is an opinion, everyone knows the troops aren't cowards, so where is the insult?
2. I'm not claiming Edwards was offended or worries people will believe it, but that doesn't mean Coulter was not trying to offend by calling him gay.1. This whole thing is probably getting silly, but here goes.
If someone called me a faggot, it would bother me (since they may think I am).
If someone called me gay, it would not bother me (since I know I'm not).

2. I completely believe she was trying to offend him.
(I don't agree with your premise that she was calling him gay).


I don't know how old you are, but didn't you constantly say "fag" and "faggot" starting around the third grade?

I love Ann Coulter. She is one of the founders of The Cornell Review and is a member of the Heritage Society.

She pulls no punches so liberals hate her.

Three cheers for Ann Coulter. Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

She was fired from MSNBC in 1997 when she verbally attacked a vietnam vet on air. She was also dropped from the National Review in 2002 for slandering the publication on the national talk show circuit. Plus her verbal attacks on victims of 9/11 is unforgivable! Not to mention her negative comments on women's groups and muslims!

And your point is........?

Maher was fired from his show and there are people who still like him. I still like Ann Coulter and will continue to read her columns, purchase her books and watch her on television. You are free to do none of those things if you so choose.

And your point is........?

Maher was fired from his show and there are people who still like him. I still like Ann Coulter and will continue to read her columns, purchase her books and watch her on television. You are free to do none of those things if you so choose. Well I don't care if you want to waste your money on buying her garbage. You go right ahead! You would probably do better on spending your money on some therapy though!:)

Are you always so nasty little man. Big fucking whoopie, some half assed massage therapist thinks I need therapy.

You should get used to the idea that not everyone is going to agree with you and those who do not are probably far saner than you.

For now, :stfu

Mertz, I just noticed on a website that Ann Coulter is only a year younger than me. Maybe the use of the word "faggot" is different for you and me.
I didn't even know about homosexuals until probably the Fifth Grade, but we were saying fag long before that and it never, and to me still doesn't, mean gay.

From Ann Coulter's wikipedia...

In 1999 and 2000, Coulter considered running for Congress from Connecticut on the Libertarian Party ticket to serve as a spoiler in order to throw the seat to the Democratic candidate and see that Republican Congressman Christopher Shays failed to gain re-election, as a punishment for Shays' vote against Clinton's impeachment. The leadership of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, after meeting with Coulter, declined to endorse her. As a result, her self-described "total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign" did not take place.

Frogger, can you honestly like someone that bitter?

From Ann Coulter's wikipedia...

In 1999 and 2000, Coulter considered running for Congress from Connecticut on the Libertarian Party ticket to serve as a spoiler in order to throw the seat to the Democratic candidate and see that Republican Congressman Christopher Shays failed to gain re-election, as a punishment for Shays' vote against Clinton's impeachment. The leadership of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, after meeting with Coulter, declined to endorse her. As a result, her self-described "total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign" did not take place.

Frogger, can you honestly like someone that bitter?

this woman is VERY bitter and very vindictive - you wonder if maybe the big dog Clinton turned down her advances once as she hates him so much - but so do the many fat and fat-necked republican men, they're so jealous of him it's pathetic.. Oh my, he had a blow job-.:o

As a result, her self-described "total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign" did not take place.

Frogger, can you honestly like someone that bitter?I don't see the bitterness there.
William F. Buckley and other conservatives actively campaigned against Republican Senator Lowell Weiker thus electing a Democrat to the seat.
And Connecticut is the state of the most independent person in the Senate.
When Lieberman ran as an independent, he increased the chances of the Republican winning, which fortunately didn't happen.
I think the people of Connecticut often put the person and the issues before the party.

What makes her more bitter than Buckley, the fact that she ran?

...but so do the many fat and fat-necked republican men, they're so jealous of him it's pathetic.. Oh my, he had a blow job-.:oThanks for the usual insight.

:@@:
She was fired from MSNBC in 1997 when she verbally attacked a vietnam vet on air. She was also dropped from the National Review in 2002 for slandering the publication on the national talk show circuit. Plus her verbal attacks on victims of 9/11 is unforgivable! Not to mention her negative comments on women's groups and muslims!:@@:
************************************************** *******
Coulter never attacked " Victim's of 9/11 " but rather that
Coffee Klatch of Little Liberal Feminist MOTHER"S of
dead Hubby's of 9/11.The reason Coulter did so,was because little
Scarfely clad " Jersey Mom " Kristen Breitweiser,found a forum.
Here was Breitweiser's chance to become Political and
form an advocacy.Breitweiser was literally lauded,numerous
times by Matthews on - Hardball - as was Cindy Sheehan.
Matthews even tried to talk Sheehan into running for office {congress}.

*Breitweiser,and her snappy hairdo and preppy scrafs,managed
to talk,openly about Policy,rather than her grieving status as
a Widowed Mom.
That is why Coulter made a snide and snippy comment about Breitweiser
and her Koffee Klatch movement.Coulter didn't ATTACK anyone.
She did make a snippy comment,about those " Jersey Moms"
which was spot-On.However insulting to other Moms of 9/11
Victims,which Coulter repeatedly clarified and made amends to.









Testified to both the 9/11 Commission and Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee.She was instrumental in the creation of the
9/11 Commission and for her Lobbying
Basically This FemiNazi was urging to hold someone responsible
for 9/11.Guess who Little Nazi Bitch,had her sights on.?
Yup.... Georgy Porgy.

1. This whole thing is probably getting silly, but here goes.
If someone called me a faggot, it would bother me (since they may think I am).
If someone called me gay, it would not bother me (since I know I'm not).

2. I completely believe she was trying to offend him.
(I don't agree with your premise that she was calling him gay).


I don't know how old you are, but didn't you constantly say "fag" and "faggot" starting around the third grade?

I think I probably did start saying it when I was a kid, but I'm sure I was saying it not really knowing what it meant. I'd assume Ann knows what it means...she's not in the third grade.

True, faggot might have completely different meanings to different people, but to me its always had a gay connotation to it, and Ann is only 9 years older than I am. I guess its possible that early in her life it primarily meant "weak", but unless she is completely naive she knows that more recently it became a slur against gays. Again, the proof is in her joke. Not proof of her intention, but proof that she absolutely knows that the word is a gay slur (referring to the Grey's Anatomy actor)...so when she claims its "not a slur" I know she is lying. Either that, or someone else wrote her joke and she just read it without knowing what it meant. But for someone who has written many books, I doubt that.

From Ann Coulter's wikipedia...

In 1999 and 2000, Coulter considered running for Congress from Connecticut on the Libertarian Party ticket to serve as a spoiler in order to throw the seat to the Democratic candidate and see that Republican Congressman Christopher Shays failed to gain re-election, as a punishment for Shays' vote against Clinton's impeachment. The leadership of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, after meeting with Coulter, declined to endorse her. As a result, her self-described "total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign" did not take place.

Frogger, can you honestly like someone that bitter?

Yes,she's Bitter,and Shrill & Pushy,pompous and Authoritarian.
Yes,that being Both Hillary & Coulter.
But Coulter is also fighting,almost single-handidly,most times,
the abject effrontery of Liberals over important ,highly PC Issues.
It was Coulter who first came out and urged that just because
someone served in the Military,shouldn't automatically discount
someone who hadn't served from the debate.
Which is an almost Clique Message Board response.
To Shush-up someone who dint serve.

I don't see the bitterness there.
William F. Buckley and other conservatives actively campaigned against Republican Senator Lowell Weiker thus electing a Democrat to the seat.
And Connecticut is the state of the most independent person in the Senate.
When Lieberman ran as an independent, he increased the chances of the Republican winning, which fortunately didn't happen.
I think the people of Connecticut often put the person and the issues before the party.

What makes her more bitter than Buckley, the fact that she ran?

Have you seen the way Coulter talks about democrats?

She'd put a democrat in charge just to punish a republican who didn't think the president should be impeached. How is she not being bitter?

True, faggot might have completely different meanings to different people, but to me its always had a gay connotation to it, and Ann is only 9 years older than I am. I guess its possible that early in her life it primarily meant "weak",..............


Please do not buy into these dishonest motherfucker's total BULLSHIT, that someone --like the worthless scumbag cunt Ann Coulter-- who uses the term *faggot* might be using it denote something other than a gay person.

They are thoroughly dishonest in their assertions as it regards this topic. It is beyond the pale to accept their bullshit EXCUSES that *Ann Piece Of Shit Coulter* was somehow not trying to send the message to the sheep that John Edwards was an 'e-ville queer', by her calling him a *faggot* on national television.

Don't even begin to buy in to these lying motherfucker's (and I am expressly talking about people like Brooks) lame assed fucking excuses. Please. I beg of you.

Have you seen the way Coulter talks about democrats?
She is about on the same level of disrespect as someone like Al Franken. He is just as snide and nasty. He probably chooses his targets more cautiously than she does, but his comments can be just as nasty.

I think since Republicans are the party of old men and conservatives, its always been a little hip and predictable to joke about them.
When the hosts of late night shows or their guests make a joke about a Democrat, the reaction is half laughter and half a sort of groan. It makes them uncomfortable.
To have someone go after Democrats, especially a woman, garners a man-bites-dog reaction from people.

Please do not buy into these dishonest motherfucker's total BULLSHIT, that someone --like the worthless scumbag cunt Ann Coulter-- who uses the term *faggot* might be using it denote something other than a gay person.

They are thoroughly dishonest in their assertions as it regards this topic. It is beyond the pale to accept their bullshit EXCUSES that *Ann Piece Of Shit Coulter* was somehow not trying to send the message to the sheep that John Edwards was an 'e-ville queer', by her calling him a *faggot* on national television.

Don't even begin to buy in to these lying motherfucker's (and I am expressly talking about people like Brooks) lame assed fucking excuses. Please. I beg of you.

Nice talk, potty-mouth.
I've always found angry obscenity an effective tool in the business of swaying other's hearts and minds.

Good job, sir.
:thumbs:
Sparky

PS Please don't post drunk. The results are always a bit embarassing later on.
.

... dishonest motherfucker's total BULLSHIT, .... worthless scumbag c__t ....accept their bullshit .... 'e-ville queer', .... lying motherfucker's .... lame assed fucking excuses. .You and Sassyrunner can really express yourselves very well.

Firstly, I have never used the word fag to describe a gay person. I always said gay or "homo" (sorry about homo, that's all that was available to me in 1974). I will jokingly call my daughter a fag these days when she stays in and studies on a nice day.

If you so insist that fag can only mean gay, it must be a word that you use exclusively to mean gay.

Lastly, to even use that word I highlighted in your above post shows what a prick you must be in real life.
Every abortion thread (among others) on these fora will eventually devolve into someone saying that conservatives don't believe in equal rights for women, or the barefoot-and-pregnant crap, etc....
But 98% of the population and 99% of conservatives would never use that word to describe any woman.

Sometimes the real truth about rears its very ugly head.

Brooks does conservatism a great disservice by defending Coulter. She is an extremist whose crude rhetoric will turn many potential converts away from sensible conservative ideas like fiscal responsibility and less intrusive government. Presentation is just as important as content in politics, and having a blowhard like Coulter speak for conservatives does the movement more harm than good.

Nice talk, potty-mouth.
I've always found angry obscenity an effective tool in the business of swaying other's hearts and minds.

Good job, sir.
:thumbs:
Sparky

PS Please don't post drunk. The results are always a bit embarassing later on.
.


Ah ! Sparky...Schnarky

" I wouldn't be in yer ratty little play,you cheap english ham.
If I DO consent to play the part,And I don't say that I will,it'll
Have to be BUILT UP . "
-- John Barrymore { Greatest actor ever }

What was the Movie ?

You and Sassyrunner can really express yourselves very well.

I apologize for my remarks to you in the last post, Brooks.

Firstly, I have never used the word fag to describe a gay person. I always said gay or "homo"

Talking about what particular word you or others might use to mean "homosexual" has nothing to do with whether or not the word *faggot* is a term used to mean "homosexual".


If you so insist that fag can only mean gay, it must be a word that you use exclusively to mean gay.

Yes. To me the word *faggot* has exactly one connotation; gay. In the dictionary it is given two meanings; eiher 'homosexual' or 'bundle of sticks'. I have never heard anyone call a bundle of sticks a *faggot*.

I have never heard a single person in my life use the term *faggot* to denote anything other than *homosexual*.

Never.



But 98% of the population and 99% of conservatives would never use that word (cunt) to describe any woman.

I am not in the habit of using that word. I have never used that term to describe any other woman. But cunt does not really do justice to the abject loathing I have for Coulter. It is not a stong enough word to convey what I feel about her. If there were a more vile, abusive, foul epithet available, I would use it. Ann Coulter is the lowest form of life on the fucking planet, as far as i'm concerned.

Brooks does conservatism a great disservice by defending Coulter. She is an extremist whose crude rhetoric will turn many potential converts away from sensible conservative ideas ....I only do that disservice to myself.

I didn't really think about it until you brought it up but I don't think she is a spokesperson for conservatism. I rarely hear her talk about anything she is actually for. She's more of an anti person.

Brooks does conservatism a great disservice by defending Coulter. She is an extremist whose crude rhetoric will turn many potential converts away from sensible conservative ideas like fiscal responsibility and less intrusive government. Presentation is just as important as content in politics, and having a blowhard like Coulter speak for conservatives does the movement more harm than good.

Not So.Not so,at all.I doubt in all the Years William F. Buckley Jr.
and his News Mag - National Review - or his long running TV show
- Firing Line - did much to gain the attention of Libs.
Unless Buckley wrote a moderately scathing review on Nouveau
Republican Policy that was seemingly running amuck.Then,of course
the Libs,quickly and with gutter glee,effusively trotted out
Buckley as an example of where the White House and Republicanism,
in general,Failed.
Of course,Rush Limbaugh was an early convert to Buckleyism
and even received a Buckley Award,nun too yore ago.
But Ann,another Buckleyite,as Limbaugh,has managed to in
short order,both make her Conservative views known,and also
stick it Dems {Liberals} with more than the proverbial,nail in
the coffin.Coulter,effectively lowered the sperm count of
innumerable leftists,as well.Buckley took years to get on the
nerves of Democrats with his grandiloquent verbage and
over the hill & thru the dale,way of prognosticating political punditry.

For this,I shall take delight in being among those of her Camp.!
Camp is GooT

This is my last comment on the faggot issue here because I'm repeating myself.

I don't know what she meant. But I am being completely honest when I say that I do not think gay when I hear the word fag.

That's just me maybe, but it's the truth.


PS - For what it's worth, last night I was saw "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and the Kate Winslet character called her boyfriend a "faggot".

I didn't really think about it until you brought it up but I don't think she is a spokesperson for conservatism. I rarely hear her talk about anything she is actually for.Well, I'm pretty sure she is for the war in Iraq, for the Bush tax cuts, for making abortions illegal, for things like racial profiling and so on. Here are a few other things she is for:

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020205Coulter.html

Not So.Not so,at all....Not to worry, Foolsworth. I didn't believe a word I was saying. It was a parody of an argument Brooks has made in the past, usually about environmentalists. I wanted to see if he would apply the same reasoning to an extremist like Coulter.

Apparently, the same rules do not apply. :)

1. Well, I'm pretty sure she is for the war in Iraq, for the Bush tax cuts, for making abortions illegal, for things like racial profiling and so on.
2. Here are a few other things she is for:

This is the problem with Ann Coulter. Of the positive conservative things you've listed in number one, we can only be "pretty sure" she's for them.

But the mean nasty things that follow number two..... we know she's for those.

I don't know if it's because that's all she talks about, it's all that gets reported or it's all we're interested in.

Probably a little of each.

Originally Posted by sedan
1. Well, I'm pretty sure she is for the war in Iraq, for the Bush tax cuts, for making abortions illegal, for things like racial profiling

Of the positive conservative things you've listed in number one, we can only be "pretty sure" she's for them.


Wow.

I find it incredible that there are people who would include the Iraq war in a list of "positive conservative things".

I find it incredible that there are people who would include the Iraq war in a list of "positive conservative things".
By positive I meant opinions she held in favor of something versus the way she is much better known for the things she is against (negative).

On second look I didn't make that clear.

By positive I meant opinions she held in favor of something versus the way she is much better known for the things she is against (negative).


Ahhh. Ok. I see what you meant.

Yes. To me the word *faggot* has exactly one connotation; gay.

That's to you, not to everyone else. Since when does what a word means to you decide what the word means to everyone.

Like Brooks I used the term fag when I was younger to mean someone who was nerdy or sissified, not someone who was homosexual. I have a Jewish friend who uses the word fegela all the time and never uses it to mean homosexual.

Ann Coulter is caustic. This turns many people off. So what. You don't have to like her but I find it rather insulting whan someone like Dharmabum says anyone who supports her is scum. Thank God it was Dharmabum posting that and not someone I respect.

Faggot...SchMaggot !
We're far too overly concerned about little interest groups
than we need be.It's the Gist of Americans that count MOST.
I don't wanna hear too mush about what Queers want.
Their's isn't a respectable,noble,enlightening or Divine Cause.
In point of fact,it;s the Opposite.
I affirm that ALL Queers should Go Back into the Closet
and Do some Shame prayers,in private.
Like,what Role do Queers play in the affirmative of a Land.?
I say,absolutely Nothing.
If a Writer or painter or Doctor,Lawyer are Queer,than their
work will speak Volumns.Never their Proclivity.
We've become Proclivity pussy -whipped as a
Society.

Yes. To me the word *faggot* has exactly one connotation; gay.


That's to you, not to everyone else. Since when does what a word means to you decide what the word means to everyone.

Since it coincides exactly with what the dictionary says that it means. THAT is "since when".

Like Brooks I used the term fag when I was younger to mean someone who was nerdy or sissified, not someone who was homosexual.

Now you are doing the thing you accused me of doing; trying to assign your own meaning to the word and have others accept it.

One big difference, though.

The dictionary agrees with me. It does not agree with your definition.

I would submit that almost no one in this country uses the term "faggot" to denote something other than a homosexual.

(by the way, your subtle yet dishonest attempt to change the term did not go unnoticed; the term being discussed is 'faggot', not "fag". A small distinction, but not one without relevance)


I have a Jewish friend who uses the word fegela all the time and never uses it to mean homosexual.

Purely anecdotal, and of no relevance to the current discussion. BTW, the term being discussed is 'faggot', not "fegela".

Ann Coulter is caustic. This turns many people off. So what. You don't have to like her ......

I very much enjoy hearing commentators who are caustic. But NOT dishonest, deceitful commentators who go on national television (or who write books filled with same) making caustic, completely unsupported assassinations of other people's character and motives, as was the case when the Ms Coulter alleged that the widows of men killed in the World Trade Center were "enjoying their husband's deaths".

That's to you, not to everyone else. Since when does what a word means to you decide what the word means to everyone.

Like Brooks I used the term fag when I was younger to mean someone who was nerdy or sissified, not someone who was homosexual. I have a Jewish friend who uses the word fegela all the time and never uses it to mean homosexual.
Just because some people (very few in today's soceity) don't think "faggot" is a slur for homosexuals, does not mean they are ignorant enough to ignore the fact that to the masses that's what it means.

Ann Coulter knows the word "faggot" is a slur for gay people in today's society and that most people view it as such. For her to go on a huge public platform and use that word (a word she knows will offend many people) and then turn around and claim, "that's not what I meant nor what it means!" is just calculating and for publicity. She knew exactly the reaction she'd get and she deep-down was calling John Edwards a whimp and a girly-man, by calling him a gay man (since gay men are supposedly weak and whimpy) by using a word that is considered a slur by most in America, or at least the gay community.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that the word "faggot" in today's society will offend people and that the MEANING of the word has changed. Ann Coulter purposely used that word to get attention, and guess what? She got it. So, kudos to her. But don't play dumb Frogger. The word "faggot" isn't the same as it use to be and Ann Coulter used that word on purpose.

For her to go on a huge public platform and use that word (a word she knows will offend many people) and then turn around and claim, "that's not what I meant nor what it means!" is just calculating and for publicity. She knew exactly the reaction she'd get and she deep-down was calling John Edwards a whimp and a girly-man......

Of course it is what she meant.

By castigating him and connecting him with gayness, she specifically intended to send the message to the gullible drones who were listening that Edwards, being a "faggot", is limp wristed and effeminate, like --at least from the perspective of Coulter and her bigoted ilk-- all homosexuals are.

Coulter makes her living "pissing off" the liberals and garnering followers from the conservatives via the same. It's her niche in the marketplace. I personally don't like her (nor do I like O'Reilly, Moore, Franken, or Maher). They play to their targeted audience... just like a rock band or a comedian.

Trying to defend any of these types of entertainers to the "other side" is just an exercise in masturbation.

No doubt "faggot" was a negative slur, and she shouldn't have said it, she's a bitch.

However, "fag" can be used to as a term not to necessarily declare someone is ramming another guy up the ass, but that he has feminine characteristics... and while it still all has at least SOMETHING to do with being gay, it's not 100% absolute. I bet metrosexuals get called "faggots" all the time, and the truth is they have feminine behaviors but still like to get some pink...

She knew exactly the reaction she'd get and she deep-down was calling John Edwards a whimp and a girly-man, by calling him a gay man..... Which neither she nor we believe him to be.
I just don't get it.

Would you be offended if I called you a wetback?

This is my last comment on the faggot issue here because I'm repeating myself.

I don't know what she meant. But I am being completely honest when I say that I do not think gay when I hear the word fag.

That's just me maybe, but it's the truth.


PS - For what it's worth, last night I was saw "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and the Kate Winslet character called her boyfriend a "faggot".

We have kind of been going in circles on this, but your comment about that line in the movie made me think of something. The word "bastard" is used as a way to insult someone, but I'd be wiling to bet that most of the times its used its directed at someone who was not actually born out of wed-lock (and the person using the word probably knows that in many cases).

Which neither she nor we believe him to be.
I just don't get it.

Would you be offended if I called you a wetback?
Have you spent years making fun of OD nationwide about being a wetback like many have done to Edwards in regards to being gay when they "believe him (not) to be"?

You believe she did not mean to call him faggot, and if she did he shouldn't be offended?

Have you spent years making fun of OD nationwide about being a wetback like many have done to Edwards in regards to being gay when they "believe him (not) to be"?

You believe she did not mean to call him faggot, and if she did he shouldn't be offended?

See now I think that is EXACTLY the point. I was raised in a British household. I KNOW that a faggot can mean a bundle of sticks, I also know people refer to cigarettes as "fags". This is not old England nor is the term faggot ever used publicly to mean a bundle of sticks.

She said what she said. Why defend what she said OR try to change its meaning. She meant what she meant. If she can't stand by what she said, if she has to slimeball her way out of it, THEN she is quite simply a slimeball.

IF she made a mistake, where's the apology to Edwards. She is playing with semantics and it is a game for her.

Who cares what Bill Maher says. Let Bill be responsible for Bill. Let her be responsible for her. It is clear what she is. I find her extremely funny sometimes. Other times she is disgusting. When she's funny, I laugh, when she is disgusting I say so. What she said about Edwards was disgusting.

Who cares what Bill Maher says.
I watch his show, so of course I happen to.