It is offensive because people like you have limited vocabularies and mix up two words.I know what the word means and am simply trying to expain, in case you might be interested, why so many people find it offensive. Your willingness to assume I have a limited vocabulary says something about you, not me, Frogger. Think about that a minute, would ya? Go back and read my posts on the issue and I believe that, if you're honest, that'll become clear.

bastinadoVery common word usage these days! We might just say "beaten on the feet," or "stick," or "cudgel."
pusillanimousNot pronounced the same way, so doesn't sound offensive, so doesn't cause the same offended reaction. btw, try "cowardly,"
people will recognize it more. Afterall, word are meant for the purpose of communicating.
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.You actually believe that Couler chose a word which is highly charged and offensive, relying on a usage a generation removed, to convey an idea about someone when she just as easily could have said any number of other things to get the point across which would not have had her swimming in obscurantism? Bizarre!

I have never said that she was calling him gay, btw. I said that she was offensive and intentionally so, and that those who choose to defend her incivility must resort to digging into dictionaries to find support. If you are even a little bit honest you will at least admit that the usage of "faggot," as noted in the dictionary links provided clearly show as the primary usage, is a derogetory reference to homosexual men. Also, the British usages are hardly relevant in a U.S. setting. Your usage when growing up is hardly relevant either, unless your arguement is that at some point you became unable to learn and adjust for the purpuses of communication.

Then we all could say, "Well, they have this disability, see. A sort of language senility. And, um, it makes then unable to use words according to their standard usage. So just ignore them, children, they're really harmless. Take them some more pudding sweetheart." I doubt this is the case. Rather it is probably simply rudeness, followed by a defensive dishonesty.

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.It's not about what I want, nor is it about your reliance on personal insult to shore up a lame argument. It's about Coulter's intentionally offensive comment and those in the world who chose to defend such discourse.

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.

Haaaaaaaaaaaa, hehe... if I were you Decka, I would cut and run... faaaaaaaast.... :D

See ya on the far side there Deck....

It is giving her far more thought than she deserves.
:thumbs:BINGO!

Haaaaaaaaaaaa, hehe... if I were you Decka, I would cut and run... faaaaaaaast.... :D

See ya on the far side there Deck....

well heaven forbid anyone mess with a homosexual... or any term involved with them.

I'm just talking about the word and the word alone, I think Coulter said it in cold blood, and I think she meant for it to be slanderous and hurting.

but the word doesn't only mean "gay"... I would say it also had definition of "feminine" or "weak".. which stereotypically runs hand-in-hand with being gay, but not all the time.

I think Ann Coulter makes some good points (the infallibility of victims is a good example) but I think she, like much of the environmental movement, hurts her own cause sometimes by just going too far.

From what I've seen of her on talk shows, I think she really enjoys the predictable overreaction from some quarters.
I mean some of you guys are just so predictable it's funny, and I think she enjoys it.

There's your BINGO!

Drama seems to think that it is wrong to be offensive when talking about others. Unless, of course, he is the one being offensive and calling others scum, etc. I guess that means that he feels Al Franken was wrong when he titled his book, Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Liar. That is offensive and hurtful. Damn that mean spirited Franken.


Shilohproject,

You are advocating dumbing down our language because some people might not be familiar with a word. English has a larger vocabulary than any other language and there are subtle differences beteen and among words. No two words mean exactly the same thing or have exactly the same nuances. Rather than shrinking our individual vocabularies to the lowest common denominator we should be striving to increase the vocabularies of others.

Shilohproject,

You are advocating dumbing down our language because some people might not be familiar with a word. English has a larger vocabulary than any other language and there are subtle differences beteen and among words. No two words mean exactly the same thing or have exactly the same nuances. Rather than shrinking our individual vocabularies to the lowest common denominator we should be striving to increase the vocabularies of others.
Fully agreed and well said.

You are advocating dumbing down our language because some people might not be familiar with a word.No, I'm not. I'm saying she was intentionally offensive, knew what the offense was likely to be before she opened her mouth, and that anyone who defends her comments based on some obscure, dated usage of a word is just as lacking in civility, or is plain ignorant of the realities of language. I'm saying that language is meaningful only in so far as it communicates ideas, and if a speaker has to explain on end that they actually meant something other than what is commonly understood by what they said, then it is they who have the problem.
...there are subtle differences beteen and among words. No two words mean exactly the same thing or have exactly the same nuances.Exactly the point. And the subtle suggestion of the word "faggot" is obvious to any honest person who's not trapped in some time capsule of "how my generastion used a word."
Rather than shrinking our individual vocabularies to the lowest common denominator we should be striving to increase the vocabularies of others.Then allow me to help increase your vocabulary. In the year 2007, "faggot" is a demeaning term for a male homosexual.

Who has praised her?


Who has praised her???? Are you kidding me???? Lets see, who was it who said "three cheers for Ann Coulter"??? Anyone???

You are also correct when you say that neither you nor I ever denied that the word faggot can have a connotation of homosexuality.

Ann Coulter denied it when she said "the word faggot is not a slur".

Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Liar
Actually, that's Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot. And, to be fair, Franken is a satirist.

You objectivity is therefore suspect when it comes to matters of homosexual slurs, young sir.
So if an African American says they are offended by a word used to describe their race, their "objectivity" is suspect and thus cannot have an opinion on it? Don't make me laugh, Sparky!

Honestly, I'd say an online dictoinary is un-bias - and most of them say the word "faggot" is now (as in TODAY's society) considered a slur for homosexuals.

Plus, I'm gay. So I'd be the perfect person to ask if the word "faggot" offends me, which it does. The word "faggot" even offends many straight people when they hear it because any slur should not be tolerated by anyone.

So please, save me with your whole, "you're bias, so your opinion is basically meaningless!" bit.

-----

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.
What I'm saying is that even if she didn't mean to call him a slur used for homosexuals, she KNEW that's what many, if not most, people would consider it to be. Thus, she is careless with her words and should be held responsible for calling someone an offensive and hateful word. Ann Coulter knew it would be viewed as such, and rightfully so, thus she should apologize to John Edwards for using a slur to describe him.

-----

I also love how Frogger keeps saying, "Well if I respected you I'd care what you thought" LOL! No one cares if you respect us or even think what we are saying is true. Just know that people disagree with you and think you're wrong. It makes us, or well me, happy to know that you know that people disagree with you and think you're an idiot. :) But I guess the same goes for me, but then again, I'm not the one who keeps saying, "Well if I respected you I'd care what you thought" etc. etc. etc.

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

I don't argue that there is more than one meaning for the word, but knowing that the more well known meaning is a slur, I wouldn't use go around calling people that word.

I don't argue that there is more than one meaning for the word, but knowing that the more well known meaning is a slur, I wouldn't use go around calling people that word.Double bingo!!

1. ....and that anyone who defends her comments based on some obscure, dated usage of a word
2. Then allow me to help increase your vocabulary. In the year 2007, "faggot" is a demeaning term for a male homosexual.
1. I think the opposite is true. The idea that fag exclusively means gay is the more dated usage.

2. And to effeminate males.

You are advocating dumbing down our language because some people might not be familiar with a word.

No, I'm not.


That is exactly what you advocated. You said niggardly was too close to the N word so we should not use it. You also said we should not use pusillanimous but replace it with cowardly. If saying we shouldn't use perfectly good words but instead substitute other, simpler words isn't dumbing down the language what is it?

but the word doesn't only mean "gay"... I would say it also had definition of "feminine" or "weak".. which stereotypically runs hand-in-hand with being gay, but not all the time.
And black people gobble up fried chicken every day. And Latinos shit burritos, right decka?

Evakian,

Your post makes no sense and does not relate to the topic being discussed. It seems that sometimes you are more interested in trying to be funny than in actually adding to the discussion. Decka is talking about word meanings and you are talking about stereotypes, two entirely different subjects.

You are advocating dumbing down our language because some people might not be familiar with a word. English has a larger vocabulary than any other language and there are subtle differences beteen and among words. No two words mean exactly the same thing or have exactly the same nuances. Rather than shrinking our individual vocabularies to the lowest common denominator we should be striving to increase the vocabularies of others.
Show us the dictionary that cites the definition of "faggot" you're using or shut the fuck up about this issue.

Decka is talking about word meanings and you are talking about stereotypes, two entirely different subjects.
Wrong again.

Getting kind of testy there aren't we, little man. What's the matter, mommy catch you masturbating again?

I guess you are simply too young and inexperienced to realize that words often have meanings other than their formal, dictionary ones.

That's more than a bit over the line, Evakian. Hopefully you will have a daughter one day and realize just how far over the line you just went.

Hopefully my daughter will be an abortion in the bottom of a dumpster. Then I can go have tea with that godless liberal faggot Edwards and we can discuss the latest episode of Will and Grace.

You have a PM, Evakian.

Evakian,

I see your response to my PM was basically a 'fuck you'. How unbelievably disappointing and immature. I had thought much more highly of you than that.

Telling another poster that you have cum all over his daughter's face goes far beyond accepted behavior. If there is no apology for your remark accompanied by a removal of the offending comment consider yourself persona non grata as far as I am concerned. Until such happens please no longer respond to any posts made by me on any thread.

You have posted what is quite possibly the most vile thing ever posted in Allforums.

That's more than a bit over the line, Evakian. Hopefully you will have a daughter one day and realize just how far over the line you just went.

Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

Evakian,

I see your response to my PM was basically a 'fuck you'.
Actually when you asked for an apology I said, "Those who get with the Evak are a rare breed. Consider it a compliment, and my ejaculation a treasured present."
You have posted what is quite possibly the most vile thing ever posted in Allforums.
'Tis not Vile, 'tis Evak.

Evak the sexy fiend. Bow chicka bow bow

:eek:

Telling a father you have cum all over his daughter's face is a bit more than heat. Perhaps after you are a little older than twenty and have children of your own you will realize this.

Had Evakian said this to my face he would be lying in the gutter right now with at least two broken limbs. Some things are acceptable and some are not and the fact that you don't seem to know the difference between them speaks volumes about you.

Had Evakian said this to my face he would be lying in the gutter right now with at least two broken limbs.
People who resort to violence are faggots.

Multiple meanings, right?

Evakian,

You said a vile thing about my daughter. Rather than apologizing, either in private or public you have decided to treat it as some sort of joke. Be assured I do not consider it a joke but the vilest comment that has ever been posted here.

I have asked you to apologize. You have refused. In light of that consider it a promise, not a threat that if we ever meet in real life I will see that you retract your statement.

In light of that consider it a promise, not a threat that if we ever meet in real life...
I'll have an opportunity to jack off on your face too. Cheers.

Telling a father you have cum all over his daughter's face is a bit more than heat. Perhaps after you are a little older than twenty and have children of your own you will realize this.

Had Evakian said this to my face he would be lying in the gutter right now with at least two broken limbs. Some things are acceptable and some are not and the fact that you don't seem to know the difference between them speaks volumes about you.

Uhh...

Getting kind of testy there aren't we, little man. What's the matter, mommy catch you masturbating again?

I guess you are simply too young and inexperienced to realize that words often have meanings other than their formal, dictionary ones.

You're a condescending, hypocritical idiot.

Well I guesse you and I are finished then, Evakian.

What I'm saying is that even if she didn't mean to call him a slur used for homosexuals, she KNEW that's what many, if not most, people would consider it to be.
I agree with the fact that she is intentionally mean spirited.
But I don't think she's dumb enough to call him gay.
Marzipan posted several quotes in which Ann Coulter makes gay references about people and she is not at all subtle. She called Bill Clinton a latent homosexual with a whiff of the bathhouse and made another reference to Hillary Clinton coming out of the closet.
She lacks discretion.

If she was calling Edwards gay she wouldn't have left any wiggle room.

And black people gobble up fried chicken every day. And Latinos shit burritos, right decka?I knew that about black people, but is that really true about the Latinos?

Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.CBL. Don't you think that by defending the cum-face commentor you've lost credibility criticizing Coulter's defenders?

LOL Brooks. Yes, burritos. :D

Well I guesse you and I are finished then, Evakian.
And I was just about to reveal to the forums that I am in fact a buxom young lass.

CBL. Don't you think that by defending the cum-face commentor you've lost credibility criticizing Coulter's defenders?

Explain how it would?

Frogger clearly opened the door for a retort.

Carbonbasedlife,

I made a comment that would be embarassing to Evakian, something we do all the time around here. I didn't say anything negative about a family member. His mother did nothing wrong. She merely walked in on him at an embarrasing moment. Had I said something along the lines of he was fucking his mother, or cumming in her face that would have been beyond what is acceptable. I didn't do anything remotely like that.

Evakian said he was cumming all over my daughter's face. That is quite a different thing to post.

The fact that you are twenty years old and don't as yet have children is germane to the topic as I doubt you would be so cavelier if you were married with a daughter. It was in no way meant to be condescending but only to be an explanation of how you would probably feel differently if you had a daughter of your own.

Had I said something along the lines of he was fucking his mother, or cumming in her face that would have been beyond what is acceptable.
You saying that would be funnier than Brooks in drag.

You saying that would be funnier than Brooks in drag.I'm more man than you'll ever be
and more woman than you'll ever get (depending on the day of the week).

Oh, the delicious irony! :banana:

Frogger defends Coulter using insulting language and goes on to say insulting things to Evak, but when Evak returns the favor, Frogger gets all midevil and personally affronted on his ass.

Thanks for the laugh, Frogger! :stfu

And hey, Brooks?

I'm more man than you'll ever be and more woman than you'll ever get (depending on the day of the week).

Evak is a gay male.

More hilarity! :woohoo:







Jeez, we're surrounded by morons.

Carbonbasedlife,

I made a comment that would be embarassing to Evakian, something we do all the time around here. I didn't say anything negative about a family member. His mother did nothing wrong. She merely walked in on him at an embarrasing moment. Had I said something along the lines of he was fucking his mother, or cumming in her face that would have been beyond what is acceptable. I didn't do anything remotely like that.

Evakian said he was cumming all over my daughter's face. That is quite a different thing to post.

The fact that you are twenty years old and don't as yet have children is germane to the topic as I doubt you would be so cavelier if you were married with a daughter. It was in no way meant to be condescending but only to be an explanation of how you would probably feel differently if you had a daughter of your own.

I'm taking it as a condescending attitude because you're assuming I can't understand something that's extremely easy to comprehend. (I have a mother, a sister, have had girlfriends...)

You were trying to get a rise out of Evakian, succeeded...then complained about it. Sorry if I'm having trouble feeling sympathetic to your cause.

I'm more man than you'll ever be
and more woman than you'll ever get (depending on the day of the week).
That's why you're awesome Brooks. You need a radio show.

Fran,


It's medieval, Fran, not midevil.


In defending Coulter's right to make comments about Edwards I at no time defended his right to make comments about Edwards' children. Had Evakian made a negative comment about me that would have been one thing. Making a vile comment about my daughter, someone not involved in the conversation is a different matter entirely.

Had Coulters said someone should jack off in Edwards' daughter's face or in his wife's face that would have been indefensible.

I am surprised you can't see the difference.

Tell me how you feel after you have a daughter, CBL.

Tell me how you feel after you have a daughter, CBL.

And here you are being condescending again.

Instead of daughter, if he said wife, or sister, or mother; somehow I think you'd still be offended.

Tell me how you feel after you have a daughter, CBL.
He'll feel great and ask for a reach around.

In defending Coulter's right to make comments about Edwards I at no time defended his right to make comments about Edwards' children.

If you defend Coulter's "right" to be a nasty, insulting cow, then you've got to do the same for anyone else. Live by the sword, die by it, pal.

Had Evakian made a negative comment about me that would have been one thing. Making a vile comment about my daughter, someone not involved in the conversation is a different matter entirely. Had Coulters said someone should jack off in Edwards' daughter's face or in his wife's face that would have been indefensible.

Ah, but you have no problem with Coulter attacking women who were made widows by 9/11. FAMILY MEMBERS OF VICTIMS OF TERRORISM! How do you justify that?

I am surprised you can't see the difference.

I'm not surprised you think there is a difference between Coulter's insults toward the widows of 9/11 and Evak's insults toward you/your daughter. They're exactly the same thing - insults aimed at family members.

Sheesh. Get over yourself.

:rolleyes:

And here you are being condescending again.

Instead of daughter, if he said wife, or sister, or mother; somehow I think you'd still be offended.

Had he said any family member I would have been offended. Tell me, had he made a comment about cumming in your mother's face would you have been offended? If someone came up to you on the street and said your mother was a cum drinking whore would you be offended?

In the almost two years I have participated at Allforums I don't remember anyone, no matter how heated an argument (and there was no heated argument here) ever saying anything about another poster's family member. There is a reason it is never done. It is beyond the pale.

Wow.

What I have been complaining about...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.

Let's see how your statement works when we replace a few of the names, shall we?

What we're complaining about, Frogger, is your double standard by which Coulter can say ugly things about the wives of men who were blown to bits on 9/11 and you make no outcry, yet Evak can't say something rude about your daughter without all hell breaking loose.

See how you've fucked up your own argument?

You should pay better attention, buddy. Or maybe just shut up so you and your retarded argument don't get blown even further into oblivion.

:rolleyes:

Had he said any family member I would have been offended. Tell me, had he made a comment about cumming in your mother's face would you have been offended? If someone came up to you on the street and said your mother was a cum drinking whore would you be offended?

I would never get offended by anything Evakian says. Hell, I wouldn't get offended if anyone said it on the internet.

In person? Yeah. But, I also would have been offended with what you dished out to Evakian.

In the almost two years I have participated at Allforums I don't remember anyone, no matter how heated an argument (and there was no heated argument here) ever saying anything about another poster's family member. There is a reason it is never done. It is beyond the pale.

Some people may think what you dish out sometimes is going too far.

Fran,

Maybe you think insulting someone's daughter is fine. Maybe that's how your parents brought you up. Maybe you simply don't have any children or if you do maybe you simply don't give a shit about them. Who knows. If you are a mother and you think it is okay for someone to publicy say they came all over your daughter's face maybe it would be best if you gave them up for adoption. You certainly suck at being a mother.

Fran,

Maybe you think insulting someone's daughter is fine. Maybe that's how your parents brought you up. Maybe you simply don't have any children or if you do maybe you simply don't give a shit about them. Who knows. If you are a mother and you think it is okay for someone to publicy say they came all over your daughter's face maybe it would be best if you gave them up for adoption. You certainly suck at being a mother.

This isn't about me, dear, this is about YOU defending Coulter. But thanks for the gratuitous insults. :thumbs:

At issue now is your double standard by which Coulter can say ugly things about the wives of men who were blown to bits on 9/11 and you make no outcry, yet Evak can't say something rude about your daughter without all hell breaking loose.

Please explain your justification for holding the position(s) you do on this subject.

Thanks.

If you defend Coulter's "right" to be a nasty, insulting cow, then you've got to do the same for anyone else. Live by the sword, die by it, pal.
Ah, but you have no problem with Coulter attacking women who were made widows by 9/11. FAMILY MEMBERS OF VICTIMS OF TERRORISM! How do you justify that?

I would defend Evakian's right to say any nasty thing about me he wants. I do not defend his right to say what he did about my daughter. Neither would I defend Coulter's right to say something about the children of the women. And let's get something straight. I am not your pal.



I'm not surprised you think there is a difference between Coulter's insults toward the widows of 9/11 and Evak's insults toward you/your daughter. They're exactly the same thing - insults aimed at family members.

They were insults aimed at the people themselves, not at innocent family members.

Sheesh. Get over yourself.

Sheesh. Go fuck yourself.

Neither would I defend Coulter's right to say something about the children of the women.

But it's ok for her to say nasty things about the wives of those men who died on 9/11. Got it.

They were insults aimed at the people themselves, not at innocent family members.

And these women weren't innocent family members of the men who died on 9/11. Got it.

Go fuck yourself.

Ah. NOW we get to it. You're Ann Coulter in drag! :thumbs:

But it's ok for her to say nasty things about the wives of those men who died on 9/11. Got it.Frannie, the Jersey Girls used their public sympathy and either politicized themselves or allowed themselves to be used that way.
They had no expertise in any of the events surrounding 9/11 but there they were on Chris Matthews, as widows and nothing more, talking about President Bush reading My Pet Goat. It was just very crass.

They shouldn't have been put in that position by whoever put them there, and they shouldn't have puppetted the talking points.

They weren't just widows at that point and left themselves open to criticism.

But it's ok for her to say nasty things about the wives of those men who died on 9/11. Got it.

She is saying nasty things about the women themselves. The same as if Evakian said something about me, myself. If the men were alive and she said nasty things about their wives that would be a different matter. If she said nasty things about the women's children it would be a different matter. Everyone is someone's family member so according to you no one can ever make a nasty comment. Except you of course.



And these women weren't innocent family members of the men who died on 9/11. Got it.

Obviously you haven't "Got it. She is addressing the women themselves, not talking about their children. Had Evakian made his comments about me that would have been one thing. He made them about my daughter, something else entirely.



Ah. NOW we get to it. You're Ann Coulter in drag! :thumbs:

And you're just plain old Fran de Marzipan. I would rather be Ann Coulter.

I would rather be Ann Coulter.

Perfectly understandable. You already live in her ass. :thumbs:

Evakian,

I see your response to my PM was basically a 'fuck you'. How unbelievably disappointing and immature. I had thought much more highly of you than that.

Telling another poster that you have cum all over his daughter's face goes far beyond accepted behavior.
You think that's bad...that little shit tricked me into clicking on a link in which IMMEDIATELY started a video of transsexual/androgynous homo sex in a near full screen view on my 21'' monitor.

Fucking deviant....

[QUOTE=F. de Marzipan]But it's ok for her to say nasty things about the wives of those men who died on 9/11. Got it.



Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo,
NOT the "wives".That's a lie.
Just a couple like Kristen Breitweiser,who find it convenient to
ATTACK Bush and The White House,over Policy by insinuating
they're MOST culpable for what happened on 9/11,rather than Clinton.
Coulter explained very carefully she did not mean to besmirch
OTHER than those " Jersey Moms ".
Ya lyin sack of rotten potatoes.

I have decided that I no longer will respond to Evakian. He has become a mean spirited little prick who is not worth the effort of a response.

Fran is simplyl too dumb so understand the issue. It seems she would be out of her depth in a parking lot puddle.

They had no expertise in any of the events surrounding 9/11 but there they were on Chris Matthews, as widows and nothing more, talking about President Bush reading My Pet Goat. It was just very crass.

How is it that a group of widows, sharing their thoughts and feelings about the day their husbands were blown to smithereens, can be labeled crass? How is it that a widow, using her 1st Amendment right to voice an opinion about our president's complete inability to immediately get off his butt and attend to the biggest crisis this nation's ever known, is considered crass?

Please explain in detail how answering questions posed by the media about their personal experiences and opinions is "beneath their dignity" and "lacking delicacy." Also, please explain why, even if they did "lack delicacy," you feel Ann Coulter was perfectly justified in asserting that these women "enjoyed" their husband's deaths.

Thanks.

They weren't just widows at that point and left themselves open to criticism.

And you'd NEVER speak to newspeople about your wife and/or children being blown to bits by terrorists. Nah. Not you. You're not that crass.

:rolleyes:

Fran is simplyl too dumb so understand the issue.

Oh, I understand perfectly. You're a great big prevaricating hypocrite.

You seem to be equating talking about the widows' behavior with talking about their children, Fran. You still seem unable or unwilling to grasp the difference.

In defending Coulter's right to make comments about Edwards I at no time defended his right to make comments about Edwards' children. Nice going Frogger.
It was bad enough when Praetorian forgot to airbrush the Adam's apple, or when Darth forgot to tweak the audio to make her voice higher, but now you really blew it.
Our conspiracy is uncovered.

PS - Rudi's man-bulge underwear is ready for shipping.

Yeah, the secret's out. I just couldn't keep it any longer. Coulter's real name is Arne Coulter and he is a half Swede from upper Minnesotta.

You think that's bad...that little shit tricked me into clicking on a link in which IMMEDIATELY started a video of transsexual/androgynous homo sex in a near full screen view on my 21'' monitor.

I don't exactly consider the message "Hey Prae, watch this video of transsexual/androgynous homo sex" to be much of a trick.

1.
A. How is it that a group of widows, sharing their thoughts and feelings about the day their husbands were blown to smithereens, can be labeled crass?
B. How is it that a widow, using her 1st Amendment right to voice an opinion about our president's complete inability to ....
2. Please explain in detail how answering questions posed by the media about their personal experiences and opinions is "beneath their dignity" ...... "lacking delicacy."
3. And you'd NEVER speak to newspeople about your wife and/or children being blown to bits by terrorists. Nah. Not you. You're not that crass.

1. The difference. A makes you a deservedly sympathetic figure and B makes you an argumentive pundit.
Using A as a shield while behaving like B makes you crass.

2. Relating their personal experiences, since that's all they can add to the discussion, is fine.
Using the premise of being widows to become political is crass.
And you used the gentler synonyms for crass. My intent was more along the lines of "crude"

3. The widows discussing their husbands' deaths is not what I feel is crude.
If they are invited on a show for no other reason than being widows of victims, then they used the circumstance (the deaths) to make political statements, that's crude.

How is it that a group of widows, sharing their thoughts and feelings about the day their husbands were blown to smithereens, can be labeled crass? How is it that a widow, using her 1st Amendment right to voice an opinion about our president's complete inability to immediately get off his butt and attend to the biggest crisis this nation's ever known, is considered crass?

Please explain in detail how answering questions posed by the media about their personal experiences and opinions is "beneath their dignity" and "lacking delicacy." Also, please explain why, even if they did "lack delicacy," you feel Ann Coulter was perfectly justified in asserting that these women "enjoyed" their husband's deaths.
You're not getting it, Fran. It's one thing to mourn their loss - it's entirely another to exploit their memory for political reasons (or even more heinously, for monetary gain). Lemme ask you a question - let's paint a scenario here; let's say you're attending your father's wake, and you're a professional realtor.....would you A), mourn his loss (semi) publicly (like everyone else), or would you B), talk up your property listings because there's a captive audience in attendance?

The point I'm making is simple - what does one scenario have to do with the other? 9/11 was no more Bush's fault than a car accident in L.A., and ANY rational person knows that. Blaming him is cheap and pointless. When those women started accepting checks because their stories elicited an emotional reaction (the liberal doctrine of infallibility), then they left the realm of grieving, and became political martyrs with a price tag.

And you'd NEVER speak to newspeople about your wife and/or children being blown to bits by terrorists. Nah. Not you. You're not that crass.

:rolleyes:
Sure, I'd speak to them. About the accident, not the price of tea in China - I wouldn't wanna cheapen their memories by profiting on my "loss" (even if the China Tea company offered me 10 million to do it). In short, it'd be sick and really tacky if I did.

I don't exactly consider the message "Hey Prae, watch this video of transsexual/androgynous homo sex" to be much of a trick.
Correction, bud -

It went kinda like this:

I found a site you'll really like.

LINKLINKLINKLINK

Magnifique, no?

You think that's bad...that little shit tricked me into clicking on a link in which IMMEDIATELY started a video of transsexual/androgynous homo sex in a near full screen view on my 21'' monitor.
That wasn't a trick, I was genuinely convinced you would very much enjoy the website.

But at least now I know you looked at it. Ahh, now this made my day.

Evakian,

You said a vile thing about my daughter. Rather than apologizing, either in private or public you have decided to treat it as some sort of joke. Be assured I do not consider it a joke but the vilest comment that has ever been posted here.

I have asked you to apologize. You have refused. In light of that consider it a promise, not a threat that if we ever meet in real life I will see that you retract your statement.
LOL! This is too good!

Cry baby!

1. The difference. A makes you a deservedly sympathetic figure and B makes you an argumentive pundit.
Using A as a shield while behaving like B makes you crass.

2. Relating their personal experiences, since that's all they can add to the discussion, is fine.
Using the premise of being widows to become political is crass.
And you used the gentler synonyms for crass. My intent was more along the lines of "crude"

3. The widows discussing their husbands' deaths is not what I feel is crude.
If they are invited on a show for no other reason than being widows of victims, then they used the circumstance (the deaths) to make political statements, that's crude.

The ONLY reason Coulter attacked these women and the reason you guys are agreeing with it/him/her was because the widows said negative things about Bush - if they had been saying how much they loved Bush and approved of his job performance - heck - she would be lauding them as the bravest women in the world. That's what you neo-cons do - when someone disagrees with you - you attack them personally...it does not matter what tragedy they suffered - all that matters is they attacked a completely incompetent president, obviously your hero. It's s-o-o-o obvious it's pathetic. :hahanot:

The ONLY reason Coulter attacked these women and the reason you guys are agreeing with it/him/her was because the widows said negative things about Bush.
You're an idiot.

The problem with Ann Coulter is that she actually believes these women said that anyone who responds to them is insulting the tragedy they have faced. NO ONE said you can't respond to them!

These are just women who have been MOTIVATED to put an end to George Bush because of the tragedy they faced. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to motivate people, as 9/11 did to our nation.

However, no one said you can't respond to them and the only reason the media put these women in the spot-light is because of their exteme protest measures which ARE news-worthy.

These are just women who have been MOTIVATED to put an end to George Bush because of the tragedy they faced. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to motivate people, as 9/11 did to our nation.
Answer me this, OD; just what in the blue fuck did President Bush have to do with 9/11? And don't give me any shit about ignoring documents, and please, for the love of god, don't waste my time with wild speculation, or the drivel of multiple penny-ante Woodward and Bernstein blogers who have "definitive proof" that Bush was complicit in the attacks.

My point is simple - yes, things "motivate" people, but if I get into a terrible accident downtown Chicago, then I'm not going to use that accident as a method of blaming Daily (our mayor) for my misfortune when I don't have proof he did anything wrong. Their perceived motivation here is a ruse, and people like you are biting into it hook, line, and sinker. These women are being PAID, not talk about their loss, but to indict people for cash-money. Not only is it sad, but I feel badly for their husbands. If my only memory was turned into a smear campaign for profit, then I'd feel pretty shitty about my life and who I chose to marry.

Relating their personal experiences, since that's all they can add to the discussion, is fine.What qualifications, in your opinion, are prerequisite before one is able to 'add to the discussion'?Using the premise of being widows to become political is crass.No one needs a premise to 'become political'.

ROFL @ "Answer me this... but don't give me any answers..." !!!

No one needs a premise to 'become political'.
No.

Apparently all they need is a microphone and a sob story. Then the checks to continue waxing political when they're no more qualified to do so than you or I. Probably much less so, now that I think about it.

ROFL @ "Answer me this... but don't give me any answers..." !!!
I meant real answers.

You need not apply.

I meant real answers.


And of course by "real" you mean - answers that conform to your preconcieved notions. :rolleyes:

The ONLY reason Coulter attacked these women and the reason you guys are agreeing with it/him/her was because the widows said negative things about Bush - if they had been saying how much they loved Bush and approved of his job performance - heck - she would be lauding them as the bravest women in the world. That's what you neo-cons do - when someone disagrees with you - you attack them personally...it does not matter what tragedy they suffered - all that matters is they attacked a completely incompetent president, obviously your hero. It's s-o-o-o obvious it's pathetic. :hahanot:

Yes,by all means...For shame,for shame on us Neo-cons for
defendiing ourselves and President from Leftist Hacks.
Hacks like Sheehan and Breitweiser who not only Lie and
distort,in order to get noticed,but also do so,from the mislaid
memories of their "supposed" loved ones.
What a way to honor "loved ones".By engaging,and
Instigating "hack politics".

And of course by "real" you mean - answers that conform to your preconcieved notions. :rolleyes:
No. The only "real" answer is what you can prove. These men attacked our towers because they were terrorists; bad people - people bent on "teaching" us a lesson - a lesson in which they felt was valid because of our "imperialist" and "greedy" nature, but surely, not even a moron of your magnitude thinks that culminated when Bush took office. This was a long time in the making, and my point is still sound - Bush 43 had nothing (absolutely NOTHING) to do with that, hence the widows of 9/11 are exploiting their situation for profit, and they're doing it with the express purpose of indicting an administration that did nothing to warrant it prior to the attacks.

Do you people get it yet???

No. The only "real" answer is what you can prove.

And since you only accept "proof" that conforms to your preconcieved notions...

Oh, never mind, you already know I am right.

:rolleyes:



These men attacked our towers because they were terrorists; bad people -

Wow, thanks for that deep analysis. :rolleyes:



people bent on "teaching" us a lesson

What people?
What "lesson"?
Can you prove that? (since that is the standard you yourself are trying to set)


Bush 43 had nothing (absolutely NOTHING) to do with that,

Besides being President of the United States when we were attacked... :rolleyes:

Prae,

They will never get it. In their minds George W. Bush is evil incarnate and anyone who attacks him, no matter what the forum or what they are attacking him about is sacrosant and not to be criticized.

That wasn't a trick, I was genuinely convinced you would very much enjoy the website.

But at least now I know you looked at it. Ahh, now this made my day.

I guess since Evakian enjoyed watching the site where men were engaging in homosexual sex he felt you might enjoy it too, Prae.

In the almost two years I have participated at Allforums I don't remember anyone, no matter how heated an argument (and there was no heated argument here) ever saying anything about another poster's family member. There is a reason it is never done. It is beyond the pale.

Has it occurred to you that your comment to Evakian was "beyond the pale" as well?

actually I was watching a food show the other night and the guy was in Ireland or the UK somewhere and they had a dish called Faggots. It was like fried cow guts or something. So technically there is a word Faggots that is still in use and is not a derogatory phrase for homosexual. Of course that doesnt mean coulter calling someone a fagoot means she was calling him a dish of fried cow guts, she was calling him homosexual.

They will never get it. In their minds George W. Bush is evil incarnate and anyone who attacks him, no matter what the forum or what they are attacking him about is sacrosant and not to be criticized.

Who is "they"?

I have never said that George Bush is "evil incarnate".

:thumbs:

Has it occurred to you that your comment to Evakian was "beyond the pale" as well?

Actually my comment to Evakian fell well within the existing parameters of Allforums. Posters have often engaged in such banter with other posters. No poster has ever, so far as I know, in the history of Allforums said something like I came all over your daughter's face.

Are you trying to suggest that you somehow approve of what Evakian posted?

actually I was watching a food show the other night and the guy was in Ireland or the UK somewhere and they had a dish called Faggots. It was like fried cow guts or something. So technically there is a word Faggots that is still in use and is not a derogatory phrase for homosexual. Of course that doesnt mean coulter calling someone a fagoot means she was calling him a dish of fried cow guts, she was calling him homosexual.


There was actually a Dyke College.
In point of fact,an english teacher from my prep school
worked there.
It was changed to > David N. Myers College in 1995.
And then a University in 2001.In my beloved Cleveland,O.

You're an idiot.


Ha, ha, ha - I expected you to start calling me names - haven't you got out of pre-school mentality yet? What I said was the truth - AND YOU KNOW IT.
If the widows had praised bush - you would not care one bit that they spoke out. .:hula:

I guess since Evakian enjoyed watching the site where men were engaging in homosexual sex he felt you might enjoy it too, Prae.
It wasn't two men. It was two chicks with dicks doing a guy in two orifices.

Prae's kinda stuff.

Yes,by all means...For shame,for shame on us Neo-cons for
defendiing ourselves and President from Leftist Hacks.
Hacks like Sheehan and Breitweiser who not only Lie and
distort,in order to get noticed,but also do so,from the mislaid
memories of their "supposed" loved ones.
What a way to honor "loved ones".By engaging,and
Instigating "hack politics".

Honor loved ones?? - when because of him - more loved ones are being killed in a useless war! - Honor them while they're still alive and healthy and get them out of there. The Iraqi govenment are not honoring their part in making their society more democratic or whatever - they are obviously corrupt. It's over and has been along time.
That's what should matter to you! Even his own party is going against him - because they're worried about the 08 election - you ignoring that fact -?? let's see you address that FACT.

Actually my comment to Evakian fell well within the existing parameters of Allforums.

Perhaps, but it was a nasty jab nonetheless. You may have been trying to poke fun, but I can't really understand your surprise that he responded the way he did.


Posters have often engaged in such banter with other posters. No poster has ever, so far as I know, in the history of Allforums said something like I came all over your daughter's face.

As far as I know, most of the posters here also don't make masturbation jokes involving minors, and their mothers.


Are you trying to suggest that you somehow approve of what Evakian posted?

No Frogger, I'm trying to tell you I disapprove of what you posted as well.

LOL! This is too good!

Cry baby!

Coming from a stickman feminine male...

not that there is anything wrong with that, but hey you'd probably get pounded in a fight faster than a fat man who sits down too fast.

And of course by "real" you mean - answers that conform to your preconcieved notions. :rolleyes:

once again... whatever you are, you accuse others of. I had a crazy girlfriend like that once.


As for the issue on hand... Coulter had beef with Edwards, but going to the family is a low blow. Coulter didn't say Edward's kids were bastard, pot babies...