What she said about Edwards was disgusting.

And that's really the bottom line regardless of what you think she meant by choosing that particular slur. I think she chose the word for its shock value, and the fact that she understood there'd be endless debate about what she really meant. She wanted to come across as a screaming bitch and she chose her words carefully.

Brooks argument about what she meant reminds of a Pres. Clinton quote:

"that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is."

or

"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

I watch his show, so of course I happen to.:stfu :D

I too love the guy but they may burn us at the stake, and my feathers will catch faster than your flesh and you are armed.

And that's really the bottom line regardless of what you think she meant by choosing that particular slur. I think she chose the word for its shock value, and the fact that she understood there'd be endless debate about what she really meant. She wanted to come across as a screaming bitch and she chose her words carefully.

Yes, I don't endorse her in any way, but she is successful at what she choses to be. Why anyone would chose to be that miserable is anyone's guess but someone's gotta do it. We can't all be happy.

She (Coulter) wanted to come across as a screaming bitch and she chose her words carefully.

I respectfully disagree.

I think that she simply IS a shrill, vindictive bitch, and it (the term she used to describe Edwards) bubbled to the surface as a natural consequence of that; 'faggot' was the word that exactly described her (bigoted, illogical, hate-filled) view of him.

IF Edwards had done something that had created a decidely negative influence or situation in her life, it might be understood that she wanted to excoriate him. But that isn't the case.

She simply hates any political action or ideology that opposes the brand of imperialism, flagwaving nationalism, blind-obedience-to-authority, rapacious militarism, homophobia and fascism that she and her uber-konservative ilk are such die-hard proponents of; she perceives John Edwards as a part of that movement; ergo, she goes on national television and uses any and all means at her disposal to incite abject hatred of him among the simpleminded bigots and inbred rednecks that comprise her main fan base.


And --given the fact that the Corporate owned, Corporate run mainstream Media is so delighted to give her and her ConservFascist cohorts in the ranks of punditry free reign to do so-- she is very successful at accomplishing that end.

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?I'll answer based on what I think you're saying here.

I'm not aware of a large movement of people calling Edwards gay.

I believe she did mean to call him faggot. I just didn't take it as meaning gay because he doesn't seem to be gay and because the other meanings for faggot seem to fit him.

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).Not only is that a great example, but it's also very stand-up of you to use it to make a point with which you have been disagreeing.

Most people here probably wouldn't do that, and I for one definitely wouldn't.

This is not old England nor is the term faggot ever used publicly to mean a bundle of sticks.

I'm sorry to repeat this again, but how do you explain the movie and song I cited in which a girl calls her boyfriend a faggot?
Does it have to mean gay?

Brooks argument about what she meant reminds of a Pres. Clinton quote:
"that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is."
or
"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
How so?

....and it (the term she used to describe Edwards) bubbled to the surface.. imperialism, flagwaving nationalism, blind-obedience-to-authority, rapacious militarism, homophobia and fascism that she and her uber-konservative ilk are such die-hard proponents of...
I don't like the phrase holier-than-thou and I would never have used it to describe you, but you earned it on this thead.
You spew the above view of conservatives several posts after you use a word to describe women that most people don't even say out loud..

If that's what you mean by someone's real self "[bubbling] to the surface", I agree with you.

I don't like the phrase holier-than-thou and I would never have used it to describe you, but you earned it on this thead.

Never holier-than-thou, as it concerns Coulter.

But absolutely, more-ethical-than-thou, more-human-than-thou, more-deserving-of-life-than-thou, and practically any other positive adjective you can think of could be inserted.

Coulter is inhuman scum. IMO.

You spew the above view of conservatives several posts after you use a word to describe women that most people don't even say out loud..

You lie.

I did not use it to describe women.......just one woman.

Ann Coulter.

If that's what you mean by someone's real self "[bubbling] to the surface", I agree with you.

If you're suggesting that my "real self" will often surface and reveal the extreme loathing I feel inside for those on the Right like Coulter, you are correct. Absolutely.

I detest people of Coulter's ilk, fervently. I detest the neo-Con Fascists who have taken control of this country and who are raiding its Treasury, bankrupting it and destroying it.

But I level criticisms at them that are demonstrable, that are based on facts and grounded in reality and that examples can be --and are-- given for.

And, unlike Ms Coulter, I am not a pundit speaking on national television by invitation of the Corporate owned Media that is a subsidiary of the GOP.

And, should one of these people that I despise have a spouse die, I would never --even given the absolute lack of regard or respect that I have for them-- be moved to make such a damnable LIE that they were-- "enjoying thier spouse's death". Much LESS to go on national teevee and spread such hurtful, hateful falsehoods, as the RightWing talking head Ann Coulter does.

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.
Well Al Franken and Bill Haher are comedians! And masturbation is not a crime!:banana:

I believe she did mean to call him faggot. I just didn't take it as meaning gay because he doesn't seem to be gay and because the other meanings for faggot seem to fit him.
You didn't take it as meaning "gay"...LOL. I think you're a liar.

Look up the word "faggot" and you'll see that it says it is a slur for gay people. The meaning of the word has obviously changed and Ann Coulter knew this.

And regardless of if she meant the other supposed "meaning" (which I don't believe)...she KNEW that people would be offended and that she would cause controversy by using it. And that's what is wrong with Ann Coulter.

And to be honest, Arnold Schwarzenegger called Democrats "girly men"...which is what Ann Coulter meant when she called John Edwards a "faggot", by implying he's a whimp and a girly-guy, since gay men are supposedly all whimpy and girly.

I'm sorry to repeat this again, but how do you explain the movie and song I cited in which a girl calls her boyfriend a faggot?
Does it have to mean gay?

Brooks honestly she may not have meant "having sex with another male"...but she definitely used it to be as demeaning as she possibly could be. And that was how the audience recieved it. They were agast for a second while they quickly weighed how to respond to her. Then somone rescued her with a loud gaffaw and away they all went. And that is often how the term is used in different situations...

It is supposed to mean weak and and dispicable and undesireable and disgusting etc. ... It's like the word nigger doesn't necessarily apply to a black person, but we don't argue what is meant by it. I wonder why she wasn't as quick to call Edwards a nigger? That backlash would have drown her. That would have been hard to recover from. She knows her audience and what their limits are. She gauged well.

Neither word is okay. Would a lawyer not argue intent. I think so.

Well Al Franken and Bill Haher are comedians! And masturbation is not a crime!:banana:

Although Al Franken used to be a comedy writer (for SNL I believe) he is also a very politically active and acts as a political pundit on radio and television. He was a host for the now-defunct Air America liberal talk radio organization.

He is also running for a Senate seat in Minnesota.

True... masturbation is not a crime... but it will make you go blind

::looks for glasses::

:D

And that's really the bottom line regardless of what you think she meant by choosing that particular slur. I think she chose the word for its shock value, and the fact that she understood there'd be endless debate about what she really meant. She wanted to come across as a screaming bitch and she chose her words carefully.

OK,let's cut to the chase.Coulter did specifically use the word as a
Rorschach test.She was trying to make the point that Liberals are
so Politically Correct,they will react like squeamish little Prissy Pigtailed
school girls,over the mere mention of certain words.
Just like according to Liberals {Matthews in the lead } A
Non-military person cannot and should not ever hold as much
authority in a debate,On Wars,if they dint serve.
That was Max Clelands entire reason for being front & center in
the Kerry Anti-Swiftee Campaign.
Trotsky-out Military persons to Bad mouth or Discount a War,and
only another Vet is allowed to comment.
Same with Race relations.If yer not Black,than don't dare talk
about Being disfranchised or Profiled.
It's all a matter of Turning Political Correctness on it's head.
Which Coulter has done to Great Non-Comic Relief.
She's got virtually the entire Liberal Community scratching their
heads in disbelief.
For what seemed a give,The ability for Liberals to control Debate
by excluding certain members,and indoctrinating and controlling
the debate by such unfair advantage as mentioned above.
I wonder if Bruno Klopfer agrees.?

Look up the word "faggot" and you'll see that it says it is a slur for gay people. The meaning of the word has obviously changed and Ann Coulter knew this.

And regardless of if she meant the other supposed "meaning" (which I don't believe)...she KNEW that people would be offended and that she would cause controversy by using it. And that's what is wrong with Ann Coulter.



Overdose,

Your sig is of Leonardo DiCapprio, with a small, loving heart icon on the corner of the image.
You objectivity is therefore suspect when it comes to matters of homosexual slurs, young sir.

Your position and your political posture notwithstanding, you completely dick yourself when you choose to broadcast your inclinations so.
Take that for what it's worth.
The debate club in college will be just a critical as I am being, and they will also be just as willing to hand you some good advice, as I am doing right now.

Ann Coulter is an instigator and an extremist, and for all her self-stated 'good intents' she has totally blown her credibility, even with the far Right goonies.

I personally think she would be a fun ride, sexually speaking, if it were not for that pronounced Adam's Apple.
(Were I single and available, that is. Which of course I am not.)
Ladies with long necks as huge Adams Apples just creep me out.
I can't say exactly why that is.
(Well, there was that one time I got a cruel surprise down on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Maybe there's something there worth exploring, next time I am in the mood for some therapy.)

:( :eek: :rolleyes: :D

Not only is that a great example, but it's also very stand-up of you to use it to make a point with which you have been disagreeing.


Actually, I was reaffirming the point I've been making all along, which is that people DO call people names even the they know the receiver of that name doesn't fit the definition.

You asked if any of us would be offended if you called us a "wetback"...I would not be offended. I've never argued that Edwards was, or should be offended. I've argued that Coulter attempted to offend him by insinuating he's gay. Name calling doesn't have to be accurate...its name calling. When people want to hurt someone they'll say things they know aren't true. So, I wouldn't be offend if you called me wetback, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be trying to offend me by linking me to whatever negative attributes you think the slur implies.

[QUOTE=Sparky2]Overdose,

Your sig is of Leonardo DiCapprio, with a small, loving heart icon on the corner of the image.
You objectivity is therefore suspect when it comes to matters of homosexual slurs, young sir.

Your position and your political posture notwithstanding, you completely dick yourself when you choose to broadcast your inclinations so.
Take that for what it's worth.
The debate club in college will be just a critical as I am being, and they will also be just as willing to hand you some good advice, as I am doing right now.

Ann Coulter is an instigator and an extremist, and for all her self-stated 'good intents' she has totally blown her credibility, even with the far Right goonies.

I personally think she would be a fun ride, sexually speaking, if it were not for that pronounced Adam's Apple.
(Were I single and available, that is. Which of course I am not.)
Ladies with long necks as huge Adams Apples just creep me out.
I can't say exactly why that is.
(Well, there was that one time I got a cruel surprise down on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Maybe there's something there worth exploring, next time I am in the mood for some therapy.)
:hula: **********************************:hula: [/COLOR]
It's a - Dirty Job - fer sure.So,Ann is the Valley Girl selected.
An analogy is in order.I'm watchin Mike Rowe and a segment
of - Dirty Jobs -.It's jobs that have to be done,in order that
Civilized folk can go about their daily lives.
So too,with Coulter.
Mike had to exterminate Termites,in the first segment.
Termites destroy the foundation and literally munch away,
any wood.Left alone,the footings and base frame of a home will
be destroyed.It doesn't take too long.
Same with the - Dirty Jobs - of cleaning out the inside of
cement trucks.Mike had to go inside,and with an airhammer,jack-off
the hardened cement,that formed.Same too with Ann.
She has taken it upon herself to De-Termite and also jack-loose
whatever hardened crud has fossilized on the Body Politic.
Yes,Ann's is a Dirty Job.But someone's got step up and dude it.
Whether Her or Rush,Hannity or Laura,Bill or Mr.Bill ?
Hmm,I don't tink Soooooooooooooooooooooooo.
It was that cracker hick Bill who popularized Parsing,Political Correctness
and making folly of very serious tings.
Coulter has gots to Un PC,what these Liberal gummy bears have
mucked up.Ann's on Muckrake patrol,she is.

Ann Coulter is an instigator and an extremist, and for all her self-stated 'good intents' she has totally blown her credibility, even with the far Right goonies.

?!?!?

While no one would deny she is an instigator, nothing could be further from the truth to say she has ""blown her credibility, even with the far Right"".

The far Right loves her, and thinks she is dead-on accurate. They take her pronouncements about the "evil Liberals" as gopsel, and repeat her talking points as if it were holy writ.

Many Rightwingers in the middle also think she is completely truthful and accurate concerning the "evils" of liberalism, as Frogger's posts would attest.

I would hazard a guess that the number of Rightwingers --no matter how moderate or mild-- who think Coulter has *blown her credibility* is extremely small.

She truly is the darling of the die-hard Right Wing.

That leftists R bugged by Coulter.Real bugged.
It's about time,that Trotskyites get a gOOt Bitch-slappin.

That is Miss Coulter's STRENGTH !

" Terror,as the demonstration of the will and strength of the
working class,is historically justified,precisely because the
Proletariat was able thereby to break the political will of the
Intelligensia,pacify the professional man of various categories
of work,and gradually subordinate them to its own aims within
the field of their specialties. "
-- Leon Trotsky {contribution to Izvesttia,Jan. 1919}

And to be honest, Arnold Schwarzenegger called Democrats "girly men"...which is what Ann Coulter meant when she called John Edwards a "faggot", by implying he's a whimp and a girly-guy, since gay men are supposedly all whimpy and girly.So she isn't saying he is gay?
Well halleluiah. That's what I've been saying all along.
But gay people are not the victim in this discussion, so don't be so offended.

I like Mertz's analogy about the word bastard.
If I called a nasty guy a bastard, should children born out of wedlock be offended by that because I'm implying that they ae supposedly all nasty?
That's what you're saying now.

If a metro like Edwards is called a faggot don't waste your time running to the etymology to find something to be offended by.

I wonder why she wasn't as quick to call Edwards a nigger? That backlash would have drown her. That would have been hard to recover from. She knows her audience and what their limits are. She gauged well.
You couldn't possibly make the argument that he is a n_____.
But in her estimation he is a faggot.

I think what bothers me about this is that for years unnecessarily cruel jokes have been made about Republicans and it is just part of the culture.
There have been jokes about Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction, Cheney's heart condition (which is much sicker and nastier than this faggot thing) and Charlton Heston's alzheimers (which is also sicker and nastier than Coulter's remarks)
And no one was nearly this exercised.

When people want to hurt someone they'll say things they know aren't true. NO, people will say things that ARE true when they want to hurt somebody.
When a comment elicits a reaction like this one, it can only mean the comment must have struck a nerve.
What's the expression? Thou dost protest too much?

The far Right loves her, and thinks she is dead-on accurate. No, I like her because she is equal time.
Before I put George Clooney's quote in my signature, how many of you either heard about it or remembered it?

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

If a metro like Edwards.........

Unbelievable.

Now you allege that Edwards is a "metrosexual".

I'd wager that you know precisely ZERO about his sexual preferences.

What are you going to do?......pull some redneck Archie Bunkerish conclusion out of your ass like Prae is famous for doing and suddenly conclude that Edwards swings both ways because of the haircuts he gets.......?!?!?!?!?

ROFL!!This thread is like a car wreck.
I want to look away, but......

Now you allege that Edwards is a "metrosexual".

I'd wager that you know precisely ZERO about his sexual preferences.

...... suddenly conclude that Edwards swings both ways because of the haircuts he gets.......?!?!?!?!?Free, this is the best parody of a stupid faux intellectual you've ever done. Where's the southern accent.

Wait.... you were kidding, right?

Unbelievable.

Now you allege that Edwards is a "metrosexual".

I'd wager that you know precisely ZERO about his sexual preferences.

What are you going to do?......pull some redneck Archie Bunkerish conclusion out of your ass like Prae is famous for doing and suddenly conclude that Edwards swings both ways because of the haircuts he gets.......?!?!?!?!?Since when does "metrosexual" suggest "he swings both ways?"

And no one was nearly this exercised.

But they should have been. We need to get our heads out of our butts.

Since when does "metrosexual" suggest "he swings both ways?"

hm, I too was wondering that...my guy has metrosexual tendencies, but he doesn't swing both ways... trust me on that Free... ;)

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
You're gonna make someone a fine wife one day, SR.

But they should have been. We need to get our heads out of our butts.That's my point about mediamemory (and the memories around here too).
It didn't matter when Clooney made an even crueler comment.

Since when does "metrosexual" suggest "he swings both ways?"
Precisely.

Many Rightwingers in the middle also think she is completely truthful and accurate concerning the "evils" of liberalism, as Frogger's posts would attest.


Please do not decide what I do and do not think, Freethinker. From reading your posts I have come to the conclusion you have enough difficulty deciding what you yourself do and do not think.

Ann Coulter is NOT completely truthful and accurate concerning the "evil" of liberalism. Like almost all political commentators on both the left and right she used hyperbole and exaggeration to make a point. There are times when she strays a bit too far from actuality but in general she has pegged the differences between liberals and conservatives.

Her comments regarding the Jersey Women, while distasteful were accurate.
They were using the deaths of their husbands as a sort of carte blanche to spout their liberal views. They were in effect reveling in their widowhood much as Cindy Sheehan reveled in her personal loss. Rather than their losses being personal they became some sort of free pass for them to say whatever they wanted.

Her remarks concerning John Edwards while tasteless were also accurate. He is not a homosexual but he is what Arnold defined as a girly man. He is a Nancy Boy and I don't mean that he is a homosexual. He is effete. The man spends more time making sure he is well coifed than in making actual policy statements. He spends more on his haircuts than the avearge poor family he claims to represent spends on food in a month.

John Edwards is not a homosexual but he is definitely a faggot.

John Edwards is not a homosexual but he is definitely a derogatory term for a homosexual.

You make perfect sense!

John Edwards is not a homosexual but he is definitely a faggot.Words only mean something is so far as they are actually/commonly used. The fact that people are busting out dictionaries to see if somehow you can squeeze into this lame box simply proves the point. Given that words are meant to communicate ideas, it is ridiculous to assume anything would be understood by "faggot" other than what is commonly known to be meant by "faggot." Call someone a girly-man, or a sissy, or whatever, if that's what you mean, but leave out words that clearly suggest a sexuality issue.

I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone could actually buy into Ann's arguement in this. It's bizarre and embarassing.

Evakian,

Please do not blame me for you inability to understand the English language. The fact that the term faggot need not mean someone is a homosexual has been discussed again and again. Perhaps your brain is too fogged from huffing paint thinner to remember those posts.

John Edwards is a Nancy Boy. Now that term can be taken to mean either a homosexual or an effeminate male. Since I am the one using the term I will be the one defining its meaning, not you. The same goes for the term faggot. It can be used to denote a male who is not masculine. John Edwards fits that definition of the term. He is as Nancy Boy, Girly Man, Faggot, whatever derogatory term for a prissy man one chooses to use. Again, it is not for you to decide what the words mean when I use them. That is for me to decide.


Words only mean something is so far as they are actually/commonly used.

As I said to Evakian, don't blame me for your inadequate vocabulary. You remind me of the black people who protested when someone used the term niggardly.

Now that term can be taken to mean either a homosexual or an effeminate male.
Can you show me where faggot is defined as an "effeminate male"?

Not saying that I didn't call prissy boys (i.e., "metrosexuals") "faggots" when I was in High School, but etymologically speaking, I can't find that particular definition for its use.

Please do not blame me for you inability to understand the English language.
You don't even understand the concepts behind the labeling of "atheist", so I'm inclined to laugh at your pathetic attempt to differentiate between "faggot" as gay and "faggot" as effeminate.

Please do not decide what I do and do not think, Freethinker.

I am going strictly by what you have said yourself.....and your continual reiteration of your admiration for and support for Ann Coulter.

.....in general she has pegged the differences between liberals and conservatives.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, you dissembling twit.

I note that --""Many Rightwingers in the middle also think she is completely truthful and accurate concerning the "evils" of liberalism, as Frogger's posts would attest"".....................and your lame assed attempted refutation to it is ---

""Well, Coulter is generally correct in talking about the differences between liberals and conservatives"".

What a total hypocrite you are.

Her comments regarding the Jersey Women, while distasteful were accurate.

Tell you what, bub.

The day, the minute --the very second-- that you OR scumbag Coulter can offer a shred of evidence that these women in question are **"enjoying their husband's deaths"**, I will completely cede the argument, never speak of it again, and donate $1000 dollars to Ann Coulter's bank account.

Her remarks concerning John Edwards while tasteless were also accurate.

Bull. If you (OR the scum-of-the-earth Coulter) can somehow objectively PROVE or demonstrate that John Edwards is *a faggot* simply because he pays more for a haircut than you, I will repeat the same $1000 dollar offer as I made above.

What possible empirical evidence can you bring to the table here that John Edwards ---even by your irrational, bigoted, Archie Bunkerish reckoning--- is a "girly man"..........?!?!?!

That he likes to appear well groomed??.....is THAT your supposed "evidence"?!?!?!.........that he gets expensive haircuts??......is THAT your supposed "evidence"?!?!?.....What?!?!?..........WHAT?!?!?!?!

Tell me. Tell ALL of us.

Can you show me where faggot is defined as an "effeminate male"?

Not saying that I didn't call prissy boys (i.e., "metrosexuals") "faggots" when I was in High School, but etymologically speaking, I can't find that particular definition for its use.

It has already been established by Brooks that people of his and my generation used the term to mean effeminate male and not homosexual.
During the period of our intolerant youth we called homosexuals queers. The term faggot was reserved for an unmanly male.


Freethinker, It seems you do not know the differance between generally agreeing with someone and thinking someone is completely right.


Since my perceptions of John Edwards are mine just as your's are your's and Ann Coulter's are hers I do not have to justify them to you. I see John Edwards as a metrosexual, girly man. Maybe you see him as a macho man but then again I don't know how masculine you are so maybe compared to you he is masculine.

I think much more highly of someone who calls a man a faggot than someone who calls a woman a cunt.

It has already been established by Brooks that people of his and my generation used the term to mean effeminate male and not homosexual.

Noooooo. It has been established by Brooks that he --and possibly you-- supposedly used the term to mean 'effeminate male' and not homosexual.

I can find no dictionary anywhere that lists a meaning for *faggot* as being -- ""an effeminate male"".


Freethinker, It seems you do not know the differance between generally agreeing with someone and thinking someone is completely right.

Maybe not.

But I can definitely spot obfuscation, dissembling and rank hypocrisy when I see it.

You qualify, in spades.


Since my perceptions of John Edwards are mine just as your's are your's and Ann Coulter's are hers I do not have to justify them to you.

Riiiight.

You "don't have to justifty" them because you cannot possibly justify them.

Just keep spewing your Archie Bunkerish, bullshit view of the world. When called on it, simply regurgitate ----- "Aw, you're not the boss a me!!"

I see John Edwards as a metrosexual, girly man. Maybe you see him as a macho man........

Careful. Your (dimwitted, unjustified) binary thought process is showing.

I think much more highly of someone who calls a man a faggot than someone who calls a woman a cunt.

To each his own.

Edwards had never harmed Coulter personally to the extent to deserve such a damnable term to be used against him on national televison. The term *faggot* has an implicit meaning; homosexual. Coulter (quite successfully) was sending a message to the sheep --"We should all loathe John Edwards because he is too much like an evil queer!! Don't ever vote for a queer boy like Edwards!!"

I on the other hand--in calling Coulter a *cunt*-- was simply trying to use the most incredibly offensive word I could think of to refer to a human being (note; I use the term 'human being' here euphemistically) who is a master propagandist and who excells at inciting hatred in the gullible masses.

But then, I must admit I was incorrect in calling Ms Coulter a *cunt*. Her ilk would first have to --in my humble opinion-- evolve for a few thousand years to reach the level of 'cunt'.

Hope that clears up any confusion you may have had, Archie.

Freethinker,

Luckily I have absolutely no regard for what you think of me. I place you in the same category as Dharmabum, someone to be tolerated as a fellow participant on a message board but not someone who's opinion I care a whit about.

I have told you how the term was used when I was growing up. Brooks and I live less that thirty miles from each other so perhaps it is a L. I. term. I don't appreciate you suggesting that I am a liar so my response to you is a simple, go fuck yourself.

Evakian,

Please do not blame me for you inability to understand the English language.

Funny. :)


The fact that the term faggot need not mean someone is a homosexual has been discussed again and again.

And it still is...so far you and Brooks seem to be the only ones who don't understand that the word carries homosexual connotations even if that's not what the speaker intended.


Perhaps your brain is too fogged from huffing paint thinner to remember those posts.

Nice Frogger.


John Edwards is a Nancy Boy. Now that term can be taken to mean either a homosexual or an effeminate male.

I'd go along with you that the term "Nancy Boy" is a reference to a male's perceived effeminacy.


Since I am the one using the term I will be the one defining its meaning, not you.

Ok, as long as your prepared to pay the consequences that result from a poor choice of words.


The same goes for the term faggot.

No, it doesn't. At least not in the minds of 99% of the people you might say it to.


It can be used to denote a male who is not masculine. John Edwards fits that definition of the term. He is as Nancy Boy, Girly Man, Faggot, whatever derogatory term for a prissy man one chooses to use.

I don't think each of those terms carries the exact same meaning, and neither will most people who hear them.


Again, it is not for you to decide what the words mean when I use them. That is for me to decide.

That's fine Frogger, but with that attitude you might find yourself defending your choice of words rather more often than someone who understands that what the person hears when you speak is at least as important as what you say.


As I said to Evakian, don't blame me for your inadequate vocabulary. You remind me of the black people who protested when someone used the term niggardly.

Why? Nobody's confused about what word was used here. The word faggot has strong homosexual connotations. At least it does for everyone except you. It also has connotations of effeminacy, but it can be used, and has been, to describe very masculine homosexuals, so it doesn't have to mean effeminate at all. No amount of dissembling, by Coulter, or you, will change how that word is generally perceived.

As I said to Evakian, don't blame me for your inadequate vocabulary. You remind me of the black people who protested when someone used the term niggardly.It's not about having an inadequete vocabulary. It's about using the right word to convey an idea without clouding the issue with more inflamitory possibilities. (Think: relevant but prejudicial.)

Ann knew this would be offensive, of course, or she would not have referenced the possibility of having to go to rehab for using the word "faggot," an obvious reference to the recent Hollywood flap. She has to know that such lightening rod comments will garner her attention=book sales. It is not she who seems to be somewhat idiotic in this matter. Offensive, abrasive, ultimately irrelevant, but not an idiot. She seems to have a crew of blathering suppporters to fill that role.

As to "niggardly," it's offensive in this day and age. But don't let me Jew you out of any of your favorite words. Maybe everyone else will just have to adjust to your delicate sense of things. Wouldn't want to impact your gayness.:banana:

John Edwards fits that definition of the term. He is as Nancy Boy, Girly Man, Faggot, whatever derogatory term for a prissy man one chooses to use.

The word faggot has strong homosexual connotations.
At least it does for everyone except you.

And Brooks.

So that is at least two people who use it that way.

Not just one.

Let's be fair about it.

:rolleyes:

I'd go along with you that the term "Nancy Boy" is a reference to a male's perceived effeminacy.
As long as Nancy Pelosi is in power, all democrats are Nancy boys. Unless of course they're women.



Or transgender.

Nancy people?

I wonder a bit about ol' Ann Coulter's actual beliefs in this arena. You do know that she said she believes Bill Clinton, and any man whom she describes as promiscuous, is a "latent homosexual," don't you?

(Simple YouTube search will pull up the clip.)

Nancy people?"Nancy" may be too gender specific. Consider: Nancy Pelosi> Speaker Polosi= Nancy Boys> Nancy People> Speaker People. And the mind warp is a completed circle!

It's not about having an inadequete vocabulary. It's about using the right word to convey an idea without clouding the issue with more inflamitory possibilities. (Think: relevant but prejudicial.)

Ann knew this would be offensive, of course, or she would not have referenced the possibility of having to go to rehab for using the word "faggot," an obvious reference to the recent Hollywood flap. She has to know that such lightening rod comments will garner her attention=book sales. It is not she who seems to be somewhat idiotic in this matter. Offensive, abrasive, ultimately irrelevant, but not an idiot. She seems to have a crew of blathering suppporters to fill that role.

As to "niggardly," it's offensive in this day and age. But don't let me Jew you out of any of your favorite words. Maybe everyone else will just have to adjust to your delicate sense of things. Wouldn't want to impact your gayness.:banana:

Niggardly is offensive only if you are a semi-literate buffoon. It has nothing to do with race what-so-ever.

Of course Ann Coulter meant the term to be offensive. That is not in question. What is in question is whether she meant to suggest that John Edwards is a homosexual. You seem to think she did. I think she didn't. She has claimed she didn't. But then again liberals always know what people mean better than the speakers themselves do.

[QUOTE=Frogger] think she didn't.QUOTE]
Because you're a fuckin' looney.

[QUOTE=Frogger]Niggardly is offensive only if you are a semi-literate buffoon. It has nothing to do with race what-so-ever.


So,as a White Guy,if I decided to stage a local Minstrel Show
and on opening night,go real Light on the blackface,It could be
said I was Niggardly in my presentation.

Niggardly is offensive only if you are a semi-literate buffoon.Or in touch with the realities of the world around us.
It has nothing to do with race what-so-ever.Offensiveness is not limited to things that have to do with race.

Of course Ann Coulter meant the term to be offensive. That is not in question.That's my point.
What is in question is whether she meant to suggest that John Edwards is a homosexual.I'm assuming she is not an idiot and knows what words mean in general usage. btw, can you cite a dictionary which defines "faggot" any other way?
You seem to think she did.I never said that.
I think she didn't.Perhaps you have inside information re her proclivities to inflame v to be honest in her word choices. Do share.
She has claimed she didn't.Well, maybe she's just too gutless to admit either her homophobia or her mistake. But then again liberals always know what people mean better than the speakers themselves do.Wow, you just did exactly what you're crying about me doing. But, of course, I didn't actually do that, now did I? btw, do you actually believe any of what you're saying in this matter, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

NO, people will say things that ARE true when they want to hurt somebody.

Actually, they'll do both. People will say things that are true and things that aren't true in order to insult or make a joke. Have you never jokingly insinuated someone was gay even though they obviously are not (or heard someone else do it)? I have. In fact I've done it before, although never using the word "faggot" while doing so.

The proof that people ridicule others by using untruths is in the audience's reaction to Ann's comment. Anyone who heard the clip heard the majority of the audience laugh. Given that this was a college audience, the crowd was mostly made up of people who are a generation younger than you or Ann, so most of them would associate "faggot" with the gay-slur, not the "weak" definition some people over 40 are more familiar with. Yet they all laughed...why would an audience laugh at Edwards being called a gay slur when they know he isn't gay? Hmm, maybe its the same reason people joke about Ann Coulter being a man even though they really know she's a woman. Ann's not a man, and unless she thinks being male is a bad thing, I don't see how she'd be offended by being called a man. But that doesn't stop people from trying to take her down a notch by calling her something she is not.

Originally Posted by Frogger
Niggardly is offensive only if you are a semi-literate buffoon.

Nothing here says a single word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggardly) regarding skin color


I'm assuming she is not an idiot and knows what words mean in general usage. btw, can you cite a dictionary which defines "faggot" any other way?

Mabye you'd like to review these entries? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faggot)


:rant:

Originally Posted by Frogger
Niggardly is offensive only if you are a semi-literate buffoon.

Nothing here says a single word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggardly) regarding skin color



Mabye you'd like to review these entries? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faggot)


:rant: Both of these links appear to reinforce exactly my point. "Niggardly" is not offensive because it refers to race; rather it is so close to the highly offensive so-called N-Word. And "faggot," when applied to a person, is obviously a derogatory term for a homosexual.

Did you bother to read your own links, or are you suggesting Ann was describing Edwards as a bundle of sticks or an 18th century conscript? Please, tell me you're kidding!

Anyone genuily interested in communicating ideas can find words that do not cloud the issues.(btw, is your little emoticon ranter supposed to mean something?)

Of course Ann Coulter meant the term to be offensive. That is not in question. What is in question is whether she meant to suggest that John Edwards is a homosexual.Right! She was suggesting he was a bundle of sticks!:banana:

I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone could actually buy into Ann's arguement in this. It's bizarre and embarassing.Shiloh, I can only conclude from this that, in your opinion, Ann Coulter is saying that Edwards is a homosexual.
Is that what you're saying?

Also, I don't think this is "Ann's" argument. I don't think she has addressed it. It's the argument of some of us here.

1. The day, the minute --the very second-- that you OR scumbag Coulter can offer a shred of evidence that these women in question are **"enjoying their husband's deaths"**, I will completely cede the argument, never speak of it again, and donate $1000 dollars to Ann Coulter's bank account.
2. What possible empirical evidence can you bring to the table here that John Edwards ---even by your irrational, bigoted, Archie Bunkerish reckoning--- is a "girly man"..........?!?!?!
.!. At least you're quoting her accurately now. In a past posts you have recast her words to "the women in question were joyful that they had to bury their husbands".
As per your offer, this is from a very pro-Jersey Girl / left wing website.
""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...."
As I said before, maybe it means nothing, but this supporter certainly sensed something in her.

2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

1. Noooooo. It has been established by Brooks that he --and possibly you-- supposedly used the term to mean 'effeminate male' and not homosexual.
2. Edwards had never harmed Coulter personally to the extent to deserve such a damnable term to be used against him on national televison.
The term *faggot* has an implicit meaning; homosexual.
3. We should all loathe John Edwards because he is too much like an evil queer!! Don't ever vote for a queer boy like Edwards!![/I]"

1. And songwriters and movie writers.

2. Give me a break. Did Cheney ever harm Bill Maher personally? Did Charlton Heston ever harm George Clooney personally?
Everyone does it and you know it Free.
When it's done by a conservative to a liberal the sky is falling.

3. Yeah Free, that's exactly what we were all thinking (where's the southern accent?).

And it still is...so far you and Brooks seem to be the only ones who don't understand that the word carries homosexual connotations even if that's not what the speaker intended.I don't Frogger ever denied the homosexual connotation and I know I didn't.

I've been saying that we can't say for sure what she meant and most everyone else is saying they know what she meant.

I think my claim, in this case, is the more reasonable.

I think my claim, in this case, is the more reasonable.
Especially when you used hyperbole to relate liberals to chicken little...

Vile: The word faggot has strong homosexual connotations.
At least it does for everyone except you.And Brooks.
Free: And Brooks.
So that is at least two people who use it that way.
Not just one.
Let's be fair about it.

I realize and acknowledge the dual meaning of the word. Many people on this thread have also acknowledged it.
You're one of the few clinging to the notion that it has only one meaning.

Both of these links appear to reinforce exactly my point. "Niggardly" is not offensive because it refers to race; rather it is so close to the highly offensive so-called N-Word. And "faggot," when applied to a person, is obviously a derogatory term for a homosexual.



Are you brain dead or what, Shilohproject? Niggardly is offensive because it is too close to another word. It is offensive because people like you have limited vocabularies and mix up two words.

Maybe we should ban use of the word bastinado because it is too close to another word. How about making sure we no longer use the word pusillanimous as a descriptive word because it is too close to another derogative word.

If you look at the dictionary entries es347fan cited you will see that faggot also meant womanly. That is how it was used when I was growing up and that is how it was used when Brooks was growing up and that could just as easily been the way Ann Coulter was using the word. Edwards is womanly not homosexual.

The fact that you can see a word only one way and want to not have people use perfectly good words like niggardly because you with your seemingly limited intellect find them offensive is neither here nor there.

Hmm, maybe its the same reason people joke about Ann Coulter being a man even though they really know she's a woman. Ann's not a man, and unless she thinks being male is a bad thing, I don't see how she'd be offended by being called a man. But that doesn't stop people from trying to take her down a notch by calling her something she is not.That's a good point.

Especially when you used hyperbole to relate liberals to chicken little...If you read it closer I didn't talk about a liberal reaction. We're all in this Maelstom together.

Didn't talk about a liberal reaction?

"When it's done by a conservative to a liberal the sky is falling."

Brooks,

Hasn't it sunk in yet that while liberals can categorize conservatives it is not okay to categorize liberals. Liberals can say such things as, 'Conservatives believe..., RightWingers mean.....", etc. but as soon as you say, "When it's done by a conservative to a liberal the sky is falling.", you are stepping over the line.


You are also correct when you say that neither you nor I ever denied that the word faggot can have a connotation of homosexuality. We both say that it can also have other connotations, something the liberals* seem unable to fathom.



*Evakian
Ooooh! I did it. I used the word liberal in a categorizing sense. Maybe you had better comment on it before too much time passes.

You know, this discussion of what Ms. Coulter meant when she called John Edwards a faggot should be viewed in a much larger context.

July 2006: while discussing Bill Clinton with Donny Deutsch:

Ms. COULTER: I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality.

DEUTSCH: OK, I think you need to say that again. That Bill Clinton, you think on some level, has — is a latent homosexual, is that what you’re saying?

Ms. COULTER: Yeah.


The following day, Chris Matthews had Ms. Coulter as a guest and asked her about her comments on the Donny Deutsch show:

Chris Matthews: How do you know that [former President] Bill Clinton is gay?

Coulter: Everyone has always known, widely promiscuous heterosexual men have, as I say, a whiff of the bathhouse about them.

Matthews pressed her again on the issue.

Coulter: I don't know if he's gay. But Al Gore -- total fag.


From Coulter's August 2, 2006 column:

Q: Does Hillary Clinton have a good chance in 2008? What are her strengths and weaknesses? What did her reaction to your "Jersey girls" comments tell you about her as a potential candidate?

A: Good chance of what? Coming out of the closet? I'd say that's about even money.


It would appear that Ms. Coulter derives some sort of delight in trying to demean anyone she hates by insinuating/claiming that they're gay. Either that, or she's in the closet herself, and trying like hell to direct attention away from her own very obvious male tendencies.

I suspect it's primarily the latter, with a little of the former thrown in for good measure. In short, Coulter is one very, very bitter and mentally/emotionally unstable individual.

It would appear that Ms. Coulter derives some sort of delight in trying to demean anyone she hates by insinuating/claiming that they're gay. Either that, or she's in the closet herself, and trying like hell to direct attention away from her own very obvious male tendencies.

I suspect it's primarily the latter, with a little of the former thrown in for good measure. In short, Coulter is one very, very bitter and mentally/emotionally unstable individual.

Yeah, I can support that logic.

Didn't talk about a liberal reaction?
"When it's done by a conservative to a liberal the sky is falling."
Hannity interviewed her about it, O'Reilly interviewed her about it and myself and Frogger apparently can't get enough of this topic either.

You inferred what I did not imply.

Brooks and Frogger are such Faggots...

What? According to them that isn't anything to get upset about. :rolleyes:

It would appear that Ms. Coulter derives some sort of delight in trying to demean anyone she hates by insinuating/claiming that they're gay. Either that, or she's in the closet herself, and trying like hell to direct attention away from her own very obvious male tendencies.
I can't deny that this is a good point. It does seem to ring true.

I rarely get upset about anything you post, Dramabum. In order for you to upset me I would first have to have a modicum of respect for you. I do not. I see you the same way I see a neighbor's Pekinese, an annoying little creature that scurries around biting at ankles and occassionally leaves a puddle on the floor. You are someone to be tolerated not respected.

Brooks and Frogger are such Faggots...

What? According to them that isn't anything to get upset about. :rolleyes:

Knock it off Dharma.

You know, this discussion of what Ms. Coulter meant when she called John Edwards a faggot should be viewed in a much larger context.

Ms. COULTER: I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality.
[B]DEUTSCH:That Bill Clinton, you think on some level, has — is a latent homosexual, is that what you’re saying?
Ms. COULTER: Yeah.

Coulter: Everyone has always known, widely promiscuous heterosexual

A: Good chance of what? Coming out of the closet? I'd say that's about even money.

I think when Ann Coulter means gay she seems to use very direct terms.
The only time she seemed to use the word fag to mean gay (actually claiming Al Gore is gay) she immediately said she was kidding.

Hasn't it sunk in yet that while liberals can categorize conservatives it is not okay to categorize liberals. Liberals can say such things as, 'Conservatives believe..., RightWingers mean.....", etc. but as soon as you say, "When it's done by a conservative to a liberal the sky is falling.", you are stepping over the line.
Oh that's exactly it!

Fuck allforums.

I realize and acknowledge the dual meaning of the word. Many people on this thread have also acknowledged it.
You're one of the few clinging to the notion that it has only one meaning.
Considering the obvious, this OTOH, is also a good point. Just because the word "faggot" isn’t defined as an "effeminate male" in dictionary.com, that doesn't mean others haven’t used it in that context. I think most of us have said it in reference to someone who is weak and femme, but not necessarily a homosexual. Take for example, a great bit of courtroom dialogue from the movie, "A Few Good Men":

Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Corps Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: You've read it?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you open it up to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes: Sir?
Capt. Ross: Just flip open to the page of the book that talks about code reds.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I really don't think that...
Capt. Ross: Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I right?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir.
Capt. Ross: Coporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book. No pamphlet or manual, no regulation or set of written orders or instructions that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross: No further questions.
[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffey takes the book out of his hand]
Kaffee: Corporal would you open this book up to the part that says that where the mess hall is.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt Kaffey, that's not in the book either, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say the entire time you've been at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: Well, I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it wasn't in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: Thanks. No more questions.

Take from that what you will.

Brooks and Frogger are such Faggots...
What? According to them that isn't anything to get upset about. :rolleyes:"According to them" you are saying we are feminine and girly.
That could upset someone.
Had you said I was gay, I wouldn't be offended.

Haven't you been reading this thread?

I cannot believe that people are actually defending a 40+ year old woman being so immature by using the word "faggot" publicly - and in fact they are praising her. What is this country coming to?

What happened to mutual respect? When she said it, I thought "wow what a wacko!". But, what's worse is that people are actually defending her and making excuses for her by analyzing the "meaning" of the word...

amazing!!!

Are you under the impression that there's only one meaning for the word? Is the situation really that cut-and-dry?

What I can't believe is that there have been 380+ posts about this woman who many people supposedly hate!

Can we say negative attention is better than no attention at all?

Betting at least a few people who never even heard of her run out and buy her book(s) now to see what all the hubbub is about.

Somebody needs to lookup DUMBASS in the dictionary and see if their pic appears.

;)
SMW

Who has praised her?

Ann Coulter deals in hyperbole just as Bill Maher, Al Franken and others do. What I have been complaining about, and I think Brooks has also, is a double standard by which Bill Maher can say he wishes Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack with no outcry while Ann Couklter can't call John Edwards a faggot without all hell breaking loose.

Rest assured, Frogger, the same thing bothers me too.

Knock it off Dharma.

Knock what off? According to those two posters I didn't say anything worth getting upset about.

Seriously.

:thumbs:

Knock what off? According to those two posters I didn't say anything worth getting upset about.

Seriously.

:thumbs:

Regardless of what the other two posters think of that word, if you use it again to describe another poster, you'll earn some time off. Seriously.

:thumbs:

Regardless of what the other two posters think of that word, if you use it again to describe another poster, you'll earn some time off. Seriously.


Well at least somebody agrees that it is offensive. :rolleyes:

:thumbs:

But, what's worse is that people are actually defending her and making excuses for her by analyzing the "meaning" of the word...

Words mean things MESK. You've drawn a conclusion based on what you think she meant by a particular ambiguous word.
I disagree.
That's all it is.

Words mean things MESK. You've drawn a conclusion based on what you think she meant by a particular ambiguous word.
I disagree.
That's all it is.

Do you think her comment was intended to be insulting and offensive - Yes or No?

Do you think her comment was intended to be insulting and offensive - Yes or No?
Of course, it was. How it was meant to be offensive is the question on the table.

Of course, it was. How it was meant to be offensive is the question on the table.

That is an irrelivent and stupid question.

We all agree that it was intended as insulting and offensive, so it is a waste of time to argue over semantics of exactly how she was offensive.

It is giving her far more thought than she deserves.

:thumbs:

Do you think her comment was intended to be insulting and offensive - Yes or No?I'll stick with the cleverly worded gray-area answer I've given already.

Yes.

I'll stick with the cleverly worded gray-area answer I've given already.

Yes.

See my post above.

:thumbs:

We all agree that it was intended as insulting and offensive, so it is a waste of time to argue over semantics of exactly how she was offensive.

Sounds like you lost on the "faggot" point.

Time to re-define the argument.

Sounds like you lost on the "faggot" point.

Time to re-define the argument.

*sigh*

Au Contraire... again.

You are looking for arguments where they aren't any. We all agree that she intended the comment to be insulting and offensive.
You are obsessing about your personal opinion of what she may or may not have technically meant in her efforts to be offensive and insulting but it doesn't change the relevent point that she intended to be insulting and offensive.

:thumbs:

If you are so desperate for a "victory" (and I see why you would be) then you can have this trivial and irrelivent one.

I have no interest in your faux "arguments".

:rolleyes:

Sounds like you('re) lost on the "faggot" point.

Time to re-define the argument.
No shit....::cue the Twilight Zone theme::

I've heard someone call others a "faggot" many times.. and most of the time it's a macho thing, trying to appear tougher. You can't deny that homosexuals do have a stereotype of being a bit.. umm... fragile? It's not a bad thing, it's just how most of them are.