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.

Every person on these boards is already well aware of the fact that there is a meaning for *faggot* that is not a derogatory phrase for homosexual.

she (Ann Coulter) was calling him (John Edwards) homosexual.


While I thank you for your honesty in admitting that, it has to be pointed out that many of your Rightwing brethren here are being anything BUT honest in this matter.

You have stumbled into the crux of the argument; there are several posters here on these boards who --all evidence to the contrary-- are STILL adamantly denying that Coulter's use --against John Edwards-- of the word *faggot* had overtly sexual connotations.

Connotations that were clearly and unmistakeably negative.

PERIOD.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]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.



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

Goot ting you never Masturbated eh ?
Man,you must be ONE frustrated Mod.

Every person on these boards is already well aware of the fact that there is a meaning for *faggot* that is not a derogatory phrase for homosexual.



While I thank you for your honesty in admitting that, it has to be pointed out that many of your Rightwing brethren here are being anything BUT honest in this matter.

You have stumbled into the crux of the argument; there are several posters here on these boards who --all evidence to the contrary-- are STILL adamantly denying that Coulter's use --against John Edwards-- of the word *faggot* had overtly sexual connotations.

Connotations that were clearly and unmistakeably negative.

PERIOD.

i think it was just frogger... I agree with trav and you.

This is the second-most mean-spirited and bileous thread that I have observed since I came to allforums.

I think everyone involved needs to back off and rethink their approach.

My two Abraham Lincolns.

http://www.calhoungolf.com/two%20cents%20pix.jpg

that penny says "God"... i'm being repressed!!! I'm being forced to be religious!!! I need to sue somebody!!!

once again... whatever you are, you accuse others of.

How childish... as usual.

Decka,

Both Brooks and I explained that at least in our neck of the woods the word faggot has a non-homosexual conotation. It means whimpy, effeminate, sissyish. I honestly think that is the meaning Coulter was ascribing to the word when she used it. Maybe it was a poor word choice and perhaps she should have followed Arnold's lead and called him a girly man but I don't think she was calling him a homosexual.

[QUOTE=Sparky2]This is the second-most mean-spirited and bileous thread that I have observed since I came to allforums.


Since I started this Thread,I have to concur.
I say to meself,every day; - "why can't posters just be less
personal and address the real culprit."The true culprit
are those responsible for making politics,in real life,not
a message board,on serious matters,that involve life &
Limb and Political careers.
- STOP THE MADNESS -
-- Elect Susan Powder as Moderator.
Cuz she's a Hottie.

I honestly don't know what "context" she used it in. Of course all non-conservatives will say she used it as a homosexual reference... that is as obvious as knowing the sun will come up tomorrow. Either way it wasn't nice, it was tasteless, and if she wants to win more mature people over she better cut it out.

This is the second-most mean-spirited and bileous thread that I have observed since I came to allforums.

Ironic, considering this is a thread about the mean-spirited and bileous Ann Coulter.

:thumbs:

How childish... as usual.

You keep proving me right with every post... I am ALL ears, keep diggin your immaturity hole. I'll continue to marvel at the simplicity and lack of puberty your posts reflect.

Decka, I am finished wasting time on you.

Have a nice life.

:thumbs:

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?
Frogger, you just don't get it, do you?

You, as an elderly-adult man, made a rude sexual joke involving a minor. Sure, his response isn't OK, but sometimes people get fed up with your constant personal attacks. This leads people to respond in a way that seems out of proportion to what you originally said. But what you don't realize is that your constant personal attacks in your posts and your overall tone around Allforums causes people to respond to you in a very, very rude and inappropiate way.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Honestly Frogger, you're an adult and your "masturbation" joke with a minor isn't acceptable around here on Allforums either.

...sometimes people get fed up with your constant personal attacks.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Truer words have never been spoken.
Sometimes people get fed up with yours too. Although Frogger is a little better at being offensive, I'd say. Crueler perhaps.

Sometimes people get fed up with yours too. Although Frogger is a little better at being offensive, I'd say. Crueler perhaps.

Difference is, some people may dislike my opinions or how strongly I stick to them, but I don't go out of my way to be offensive.

This is, without a doubt, the most idiotic fucking thread on this board right now. Would you people grow the fuck up?

This is, without a doubt, the most idiotic fucking thread on this board right now. Would you people grow the fuck up?
Lionel, I use to respect you even though you didn't like me.

However, now all I see you doing is going to threads and telling everyone how dumb the thread is or how you are so much better then those posting in the thread - as your "grow the fuck up" line implies.

If you don't care for the thread, why post in it and give it more attention? Honestly, all I see you do is saying shit like this everywhere. Get over yourself.

Everybody is better than Overdose.

If you don't care for the thread, why post in it and give it more attention? Honestly, all I see you do is saying shit like this everywhere. Get over yourself.

To quote you, it's the whiners in the world that make things change. Not that I believe that. I'm just venting.

I wsh there were more whiners in the world

To quote you, it's the whiners in the world that make things change. Not that I believe that. I'm just venting.
You were venting and being a jerk, not working or trying to create change. Thanks for pointing out the difference between you and I. :)

Honestly, go vent somewhere else.

You were venting and being a jerk, not working or trying to create change. Thanks for pointing out the difference between you and I. :)

Honestly, go vent somewhere else.
Are you really going to turn this thread into a "Pile on OD" thread again? Stop needling people, you might notice that people treat you better.

Are you really going to turn this thread into a "Pile on OD" thread again? Stop needling people, you might notice that people treat you better.
Uhhh, Lionel is the one who said we need to "grow the fuck up"...yet I'm the asshole?

Honestly Borg, it seems most people are ganging up against Frogger, aside from his right-wing allies. But even if people "pile up against me" for saying what I think, I don't care.

I honestly don't care if anyone "treats" me nicely on Allforums, because no one treats ANYONE with very much respect on here. It is just a place where people go to attack each other for the most part. I've accepted it and I've decided to stop trying to change it...because even YOU have told me to "accept" it, even though what happens here isn't acceptable. Regardless, I've accepted it.

BTW, stop preaching to me, you have no ground to stand on. You've shown yourself to have a double-standard and that you only moderate when you feel like it.

Uhhh, Lionel is the one who said we need to "grow the fuck up"...yet I'm the asshole?
Where did I call you an asshole? Stop putting words in my mouth.
I honestly don't care if anyone "treats" me nicely on Allforums, because no one treats ANYONE with very much respect on here. It is just a place where people go to attack each other for the most part. I've accepted it and I've decided to stop trying to change it...because even YOU have told me to "accept" it, even though what happens here isn't acceptable. Regardless, I've accepted it.
There's accepting it and then there's intentionally needling people in order to provoke a response. By actively needling, you are making the problem worse.
BTW, stop preaching to me, you have no ground to stand on. You've shown yourself to have a double-standard and that you only moderate when you feel like it.
How the hell does this have anything to do with moderation?

Where did I call you an asshole? Stop putting words in my mouth.
Implied my friend, implied.

Honestly, I was using the word to point out that you were attacking me, yet Lionel was the one who was attacking everyone in this entire thread...but because you have a grudge against me you are more then willing to go after me, not him.

There's accepting it and then there's intentionally needling people in order to provoke a response. By actively needling, you are making the problem worse.
I've never heard of "needling" before, but if you think I'm "needling", fine, but I don't agree with you. So, in one ear and out the other.

How the hell does this have anything to do with moderation?
I'm just pointing out that you love to get on some people's backs for the same thing other people do. You have double standards not only in your posts but in the way you moderate. Just pointing out an observation...but it just so happens to be one you don't like. :)

Implied my friend, implied.

Honestly, I was using the word to point out that you were attacking me, yet Lionel was the one who was attacking everyone in this entire thread...but because you have a grudge against me you are more then willing to go after me, not him.


I've never heard of "needling" before, but if you think I'm "needling", fine, but I don't agree with you. So, in one ear and out the other.


I'm just pointing out that you love to get on some people's backs for the same thing other people do. You have double standards not only in your posts but in the way you moderate. Just pointing out an observation...but it just so happens to be one you don't like. :)
This post can be summed up in five words.

"I am always a victim."

This post can be summed up in five words.

"I am always a victim."
LOL! You do have a grudge against me for what I said to you a few weeks back. You've shown it countless times recently.

And you have NO reason as to why you went after me and not Lionel, or why you didn't go after the BOTH of us.

Bias. Bias. Bias.

I'm not a "victim"...I'm just pointing out the truth and you can't handle it.

LOL! You do have a grudge against me for what I said to you a few weeks back. You've shown it countless times recently.

And you have NO reason as to why you went after me and not Lionel, or why you didn't go after the BOTH of us.

Bias. Bias. Bias.

I'm not a "victim"...I'm just pointing out the truth and you can't handle it.
Grudge? Nah. I don't hold grudges. In fact, I'd be willing to forgive you if you ever bothered to apologize.

Lionel's post has a difference. The people in this thread do need to grow up. You just come in and attack Lionel, inherently defending the inane sniping this thread has become. And, I just realized, I'm participating in by replying to you.

I won't reply to this sort of thing in this thread anymore. I'll try not to do it in any more threads, but being human, I may slip up from time to time. If you want to get the "last word", go ahead. I'm through replying to your own inane sniping. But I will leave you some advice. No one here takes you seriously. Examine that. Do you want people to? If so, reevaluate your style of posting. Some may hold grudges, but you'll be respected by most if you make intelligent, thoughtful posts. As I know from past experience that you are capable of doing. Why you stopped, I have no idea, but I'm perfectly willing to have a good discussion with you if you are.

Grudge? Nah. I don't hold grudges. In fact, I'd be willing to forgive you if you ever bothered to apologize.
I have nothing to apologize for.

Lionel's post has a difference. The people in this thread do need to grow up. You just come in and attack Lionel, inherently defending the inane sniping this thread has become. And, I just realized, I'm participating in by replying to you.
Oh Borg. Lionel made a post attacking everyone in this thread, and his comment was clearly going to rile people up. The point is, what was the point of his post? Did he actually think people were going to listen to him? Does he really think he'll get members at ALLFORUMS to change their ways and posting style? I mean, get real! Everytime I've tried to call for some change or point out something that is wrong with Allforums, I get tons of shit. So, his point was to be a jerk and make himself feel better. He's been complaining about Allforums for some time and I think he's fed up with it, so he goes around saying how stupid Allforums is and how our threads suck. And to be honest, they do suck, but instead of complaining about them, I just go along with it and enjoy how much they suck. He should either do the same or leave, because everyone here refuses to change. Either accept it or move on from Allforums.

No one here takes you seriously. Examine that. Do you want people to? If so, reevaluate your style of posting. Some may hold grudges, but you'll be respected by most if you make intelligent, thoughtful posts. As I know from past experience that you are capable of doing. Why you stopped, I have no idea, but I'm perfectly willing to have a good discussion with you if you are.
Uhhh, that's not true. A few members DO take me seriously. I've talked to them many times through PM's and in other threads. Just because a lot of posters don't take me seriously, does not mean NONE of them take me seriously.

Also, I don't care if people take me seriously or not. Allforums has become a joke. Everyone attacks and makes fun of each other. So, you either join or leave. I've decided to join.

PS: I love how you always say, "well, you can get the last word because I won't be replying!" because then in a sense, you are getting the last word by saying you won't reply. That's like, debate 101. Nice trick. But I've done it and heard it many, many times.

People on ignore list:
-Napster
-ES
-Imp


Awwww....isn't that special?

Can we drop this thread now? Its really 532 posts of NOTHING!!

I change my vote.

This is now officially the number one all time bilious and mean-spirited thread ever.

Ironic, considering this is a thread about the mean-spirited and bileous Ann Coulter.

:thumbs:

Dharmabum, if you read back a few gazillion posts back in this very thread, I made disparaging remarks about the woman, very much to that effect:

"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."

And then of course I remarked how she might be a fun ride, were it not for that creepy Adam's Apple thing.

In all things, balance.

http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog-images/misc/scales-of-justice.gif

Wow, I leave a thread alone for a while and look what happens... Oh wait, it's the same thing that happens in almost every single other thread that lasts more than 20 posts!

Wow, I leave a thread alone for a while and look what happens...
Yeah, trav drowned in donkey spunk.

This thread is wonderful!

Oh wait, it's the same thing that happens in almost every single other thread that lasts more than 20 posts!
Or any thread that dhrama posts in...

[QUOTE=Sparky2]I change my vote.

This is now officially the number one all time bilious and mean-spirited thread ever.



Dharmabum, if you read back a few gazillion posts back in this very thread, I made disparaging remarks about the woman, very much to that effect:

"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 originally started this Thread to discuss how 2 different and
extremely Political Opposites,are trying to control Political debate
in this Country.
Matthews with his - HARDBALL - and college tours.
Coulter with her Books,and guest spots on talking head shows.
Each personality has an effective yet discrimainating approach
to talking Politics.
Coulter is a Provocateur who enjoys poking fun and Mocking her
Liberal foe,thru symbolism and their own words,unravelled.
Matthews like to make his Foe,uncomfortable by usurping and
acting condescending.If you don't agree with Matthews,he'll
make you feel like an autistic.
I can't help it,this Thread got personal.
I can't control debate.You'll notice I've tried to restrain from
getting personal,by diffraction and slight Humor.
I can't perform Miracles on a message Board.
Maybe I can pull a bunny rabbit out of somes Arse.
Maybe s'not dough.

1. 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.
2. That's what you neo-cons do -
1. That's pretty astute but slightly off.
Coulter's reason for criticizing the women is legitimate. They became political. Their tragedy does not grant them a criticism shield if they choose to leave the realm of human interest to become critics.
Had they been praising Bush I would agree with them but I would not be praising them.

2. I've never understood the phrase neo-con, and I daresay those who use it may not.
I am not "neo" to anything conservative. I believe only a former moderate or former liberal can be a "neo-con".
Can you please explain it to me because I don't get it.

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.There are different meanings to "can't respond to them".
Obviously you can respond thanks to the First Amendment.
But when I say you "can't" respond to the infallible class I mean if you disagree with one of them you are told that you don't understand, they've been through a tragedy, they have more credibility, you're being cruel, etc.

When Carolyn McCarthy ran against an incumbent, he just about dropped out of the race after three weeks because he couldn't criticize her on any issue without being called mean spirited.

So you're right - nobody said you "can't" criticize these people, but you usually lose the argument before it even starts.

1. What qualifications, in your opinion, are prerequisite before one is able to 'add to the discussion'?
2. Brooks: Using the premise of being widows to become political is crass.
Sedan: No one needs a premise to 'become political'. 1. It depends on why you were invited to the talk show.
In the weeks following 9/11 engineers came on to discuss structural integrity, pilots came on to talk about navigation and flight training, firemen came on to talk about rescue, economists were brought on to talk about Wall Street, and loved ones were brought on to talk about the human side of the tragedy.
If the pilots or engineers started talking about President Bush reading "My Pet Goat" (as the widows did) it would be wrong because the pilot would be using the premise of their flying expertise to vent their political opinions.
When these widows use the premise of their husbands' deaths to do that, it's even more wrong.

2. No, no one needs a premise, but there's a time and place.

There are different meanings to "can't respond to them".
Obviously you can respond thanks to the First Amendment.
But when I say you "can't" respond to the infallible class I mean if you disagree with one of them you are told that you don't understand, they've been through a tragedy, they have more credibility, you're being cruel, etc.

When Carolyn McCarthy ran against an incumbent, he just about dropped out of the race after three weeks because he couldn't criticize her on any issue without being called mean spirited.

So you're right - nobody said you "can't" criticize these people, but you usually lose the argument before it even starts.

I think half of the battle with Liberalism,or those like Moore and
Franken,Maher and Rosie,is their dominating Right of First
Refussal.They all seem to thrive on being the first to make
a snappy and snide Political comment,that always Presumes their
FOE to be out of touch and ignurnt of Americana.
As if a First Amendement Right,is more important than
what is being said or implied.
Republicans are different.They are more controlled and
cognizant of their behavior and the negative impact,that playing
Politics thru Propaganda,can have on a Society.
Obviously Leftists,like those mentioned above,are perfectly
comfortable as Wolf in sheep's clothinh.
Neo-cons wood seldom choose such get-up.
Winston Churchill once commented his opponent was a
" Sheep in Sheep's clothing ".
I doubt many Sheep,would take kindly to Moore or Rosie
wearin their fleece.

... there are several posters here on these boards who .... are STILL adamantly denying that Coulter's use --against John Edwards-- of the word *faggot* had overtly sexual connotations.
Connotations that were clearly and unmistakeably negative.
I don't deny anything you have said in the above quoted post.
Which means you have pulled back a little on your original argument.

Difference is, some people may dislike my opinions or how strongly I stick to them...
There's more to it than that.

You were venting and being a jerk, not working or trying to create change. Thanks for pointing out the difference between you and I.
Never use an objective pronoun in the predicate while calling someone else a jerk.

Never use an objective pronoun in the predicate while calling someone else a jerk.Is this exactly what you meant to say? Shouldn't the objective "me" been used rather than the subjective "I," as in "between you and me?":banana:

Never use an objective pronoun in the predicate while calling someone else a jerk.

No such a thingy as an " objective pronoun ".
There are 5 Pronouns :
1.) Personal
2.) Relative
3.) Indefinite
4.) Demonstrative
5.) Interrogative
You may be confused over the kinds of Predicate
as in simple,complete or compound.

A subject or Predicate is said to be understood if it is not actually
stated but clearly implied.
ex. { Eat well,stay fit,die anyways. } The understood subject is you.
Maybe a complete predicate is in order.
One that includes verbs,modifiers,objects,and compliments.
" You can preach a better sermon with your life than with
your lips. " -- Oliver Goldsmith

lets just ban dhrama and overdose and get on with our lives.

lets just ban dhrama and overdose and get on with our lives.

How am I stopping you from "getting on with your life" now?

Freak.

I cannot believe this. Brooks is like Thomas the Tank Engine. The discussion is still going on.

This thread was terrible, the argument was going nowhere, as well as being rather inconsequential at that. I thought maybe the mods would be wise and close the thread when a fight broke out. But no, crudeness and swearing do nothing. The inclusion of dharma isn't even enough to ruin the thread and make it deserve to be closed.

We even got Lionel to say a vulgarity.

Stop the madness before Brooks falls too!

There's more to it than that.

Well?

Ann Coulter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ann Coulter
Born: December 8, 1961 (1961-12-08) (age 45)
New York City, New York, USA
Occupation: author, columnist, political commentator
Website: http://www.anncoulter.com


Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American conservative columnist and political commentator, and a best-selling author. She frequently appears on television, radio and as a speaker at public and private events.

Known for her confrontational style, she has been described by The Observer as "the Republican Michael Moore", and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt". Coulter has described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not claim to be "impartial or balanced".

************

All this wasted energy trying to prove what the lady herself admits is true. Not to mention the big bucks she gets for 'stirring the pot'.

Me thinks she ain't the only pot stirrer in the crowd... she's just paid more than all you saps put together.

:corn:

No such a thingy as an " objective pronoun ".
Can you then tell us the differance in the first person personal pronouns I and ME, or the third person personal pronouns He, and Him?

You are, of course, mistaken in this matter. The word objective is, in this case, an adjective used to describe the pronoun. As in, "use the objective pronoun to modify a gerund." e.g. Her walking by everyday at 2 pm was something I always looked forward to. "Her" is the third person pronoun in its feminine, objective form.

Is this exactly what you meant to say? Shouldn't the objective "me" been used rather than the subjective "I," as in "between you and me?":banana:We agree it should have been "me", but you are right, "I" is subjective and not objective. Damn.

Damn.What really sux is when we correct someone on grammer, and then get our grammer wrong! That's why you'll never see me correcting anyone on spelling or typos!

(My editor loves me, though, because I so easily say, "Oh, my bad!"):banana:

How am I stopping you from "getting on with your life" now?

Freak.

you're the disease, and I am the cure, punk.

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/02/92/34m.jpg

How am I stopping you from "getting on with your life" now?
It's a figure of speech, moron.

I, for one, would love to see you banned - you're quite possibly the worst poster we've ever had participate in discussion here. You're like a malignant tumor; you keep popping up (despite numerous efforts on our end to rid ourselves of you).

Hey, do us all a favor, and take the hint, asswipe. It isn't subtle.

No such a thingy as an " objective pronoun ".
There are 5 Pronouns :
1.) Personal
2.) Relative
3.) Indefinite
4.) Demonstrative
5.) Interrogative

This website - http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0885483.html
lists the types of pronouns as subjective, objective, possessive, demonstrative, interrogative, indefinite and relative.

And no, this doesn't erase the fact that I confused objective with subjective.

What really sux is when we correct someone on grammer, and then get our grammer wrong! That's why you'll never see me correcting anyone on spelling or typos!
(My editor loves me, though, because I so easily say, "Oh, my bad!"):banana:The only circumstance in which I'll correct someone else's spelling or grammar is when it is used in a sentence questioning someone else's intelligence.
By my own rule I deserved the correction.

To split hairs with you, my grammer was correct.
My vocabulary was wrong.

To split hairs with you, my grammer was correct.
My vocabulary was wrong.
And your spelling?

And your spelling?
He was up all night watching Frasier reruns...ahhh Kelsey Grammer what happened to you.

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/men/kelsey-grammer/pictures/kelsey-grammer-picture-1.jpg

It's a figure of speech, moron.

No, it isn't.

Seriously. Look at you.

You could easily just ignore me and "get on with your life" but here you sit demonizing me and getting yourself worked up for no good reason.

What the heck have I ever done to you except expose you as the narrow minded hate-monger that you are? I use your own words against you... well cry me a river. As Brooks would say "words have meaning".

:stfu

[FONT=Helv][SIZE=2]you're the disease, and I am the cure, punk.


:rolleyes:

Go get on with your life too Trav.

To split hairs with you, my grammer was correct.
My vocabulary was wrong.Well, okay. But sometimes the wrong word can look like we've gotten the grammer wrong, doncha think? I was obvious, btw, that you were trying to say what was correct. That's why I wrote the post the way I did.

"words have meaning".
:stfuExcept, I have recently learned, the word "faggot.":banana:

And your spelling?Give me 50% on that for at least getting it right once in the same post.

And me? I'm so assume a speller...I didn't even notice! How very Zen.

I use your own words against you...
:stfu

that is one thing you got right, to bad you always use them out of context.

Except, I have recently learned, the word "faggot.":banana:

:lolhit:

that is one thing you got right, to bad you always use them out of context.

Is that your excuse of the week?

:rolleyes:

How am I stopping you from "getting on with your life"

LOL. Good question.

You do two things that cause seething anger in them;

You present the unvarnished truth about things that are happening in this country, and you expose their hypocrisy, bigotry and ignorance.

They are inexorably compelled to first try to deflect all that and to obfuscate, lie and deny before they can "get on with their life".

Originally Posted by Freethinker
... there are several posters here on these boards who .... are STILL adamantly denying that Coulter's use --against John Edwards-- of the word *faggot* had overtly sexual connotations.
Connotations that were clearly and unmistakeably negative.

I don't deny anything you have said in the above quoted post.
Which means you have pulled back a little on your original argument.

No. Sorry. I haven't. Not in the slightest.

Is that your excuse of the week?

:rolleyes:

I still find it hard to believe a self proclaimed proponent of free speech sees nothing wrong with choping up sentences of other people and using fragments of which you can use out of context. You just seem to think that that activity is OK. I assure you if someone did that to you as many times as you have done that to me you would probably be crying right now.

Brooks,

When Carolyn McCarthy ran against an incumbent, he just about dropped out of the race after three weeks because he couldn't criticize her on any issue without being called mean spirited.

As a fellow Long Islander I remember the McCarthy campaign quite well. I(t was sad that Colin Ferguson killed her husband but it was really quite unsavory the way she used his dead body as a way to get elected. Her entire campaign was run on the corpse of her dead husband. Any criticism of her and the fact that she had absolutelyl no platform was met with cries of, "She is a widow. How can you talk like that about her?"

McCarthy was a registered Republican until she was convinced she could beat Dan Frisa if she ran as a Democrat because of the sympathy vote related to the Ferguson affair.

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.

Hmmm, how could she have called Bill or Hilary "gay" when everyone knows they clearly are straight?

Hmmm, how could she have called Bill or Hilary "gay" when everyone knows they clearly are straight?

Not everyone knows Hillary is clearly straight. There has been a lot of speculation about her sexual orientation over the years. She didn't say Bill is gay but that he has a whiff of homosexuality around him, in other words he is a latent, repressed homosexual who is trying to assert his manliness by being extremely heterosexually promiscuous. (Her thoughts, not mine.)

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.


So it would be like Coulter claiming that Mrs. Edwards was using her child's death for political gain, right (or saying the Jersey wives are glad their husbands died)?

If someone came up to you on the street and said your mother was a cum drinking whore would you be offended?


According to Brooks, that couldn't be offensive unless your mother actually was a "cum drinking whore"...remember, it can't be hurtful if its not true.

So it would be like Coulter claiming that Mrs. Edwards was using her child's death for political gain, right (or saying the Jersey wives are glad their husbands died)?


No, it would not.

Had Ann Coulter said something about the children that would have been the same. She said nothing negative about the children or about the husbands of the Jersey Wives. She said something negative about how John Edwards was using the death of his child as a political playing card and about how the Jersey Wives were doing the same with the husband's deaths.


The difference is that in one instance the way certain adults have manipulated tragedies in their lives for political purpose is the issue in the other an innocent child is being slandered. Evakian did not insult me, he insulted my daughter.

According to Brooks, that couldn't be offensive unless your mother actually was a "cum drinking whore"...remember, it can't be hurtful if its not true.

Take that up with Brooks. That is not what I said. If you insult an innocent family member you have stepped over a line. Were I to be arguing with you and to say that your wife and daughter were cum drinking sluts I would be insulting two innocent people, not you. I would have transfered the argument from one between you and me to one in which I brought in innocent people for no other purpose than to insult them even though they were not part of the equation.

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.

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.


This is the worst example I've seen from you going out of your way to justify bad behavior. She is saying nasty things about how the women feel about their dead husbands. It worries me that you don't see how low that is. So, if you lost a loved one and someone said "you're glad your loved one's dead", tell me you wouldn't be as offended as you are now. Eviak crossed the line about your daughter. Ann Coulter crossed the line about these women (by taking a shot at their loss). Maybe two different lines, but both were crossed. Yet you're outraged by one and give "three cheers" for the other.

Hmmm, how could she have called Bill or Hilary "gay" when everyone knows they clearly are straight?

:lolhit: :lolhit: :lolhit: :lolhit: :lolhit: :lolhit::lolhit: :lolhit: :lolhit:

So, if you lost a loved one and someone said "you're glad your loved one's dead", tell me you wouldn't be as offended as you are now.
You can't possibly be this dense. I mean, you're a pretty fair liberal, Dna, and to share my honest opinion, I know you're not dumb. Are you being intentionally obtuse? I find it very difficult to believe how someone with a 3 digit IQ couldn't understand the (very simple) point we're making.

But when I say you "can't" respond to the infallible class I mean if you disagree with one of them you are told that you don't understand, they've been through a tragedy, they have more credibility, you're being cruel, etc.

So you're right - nobody said you "can't" criticize these people, but you usually lose the argument before it even starts.
No one ever said they have more credibility or that others are being cruel if you disagree with a mother who has lost their son.

It is obvious that many mothers who lost their sons in Iraq also agree with YOU, Brooks. Sooooo, I don't know what the hell point you are trying to make.

Honestly, the only reason these women are speaking out is because the death of their sons motivated them to. They aren't using the death of their son to say you can't respond to them, or that what they say is correct because their son died. They are simply going out for a cause they feel strongly about because they were motivated by their sons death.

It is the same as 9/11 motivated us to fight terrorism. And most Americans don't say to France, "well, you weren't attacked on 9/11, so you wouldn't know!" or "because we were attacked on 9/11 what we say is correct!" No, no one does that and none of these mothers do that either because it isn't a strong argument.

If you want to disagree with them, fine. If you want to argue with them, fine. NO ONE said you couldn't and you do NOT loose the argument right off the bat. That is a myth.

ALSO, Ann Coulter used the word "faggot" knowing it would offend people, since the current meaning of the word is a SLUR for homosexuals.

Ann Coulter just loves to get attention. And that's fine. But at least realize she does it on purpose and doesn't really have any strong points.

This is now officially the number one all time bilious and mean-spirited thread ever.
See what Ann Coulter brings out in us?

This is the worst example I've seen from you going out of your way to justify bad behavior. She is saying nasty things about how the women feel about their dead husbands. It worries me that you don't see how low that is. So, if you lost a loved one and someone said "you're glad your loved one's dead", tell me you wouldn't be as offended as you are now. Eviak crossed the line about your daughter. Ann Coulter crossed the line about these women (by taking a shot at their loss). Maybe two different lines, but both were crossed. Yet you're outraged by one and give "three cheers" for the other.

Of course I would be offended. The Jersey women WERE offended. I don't blame them for being offended. My contention, however, is that they made themselves fair game for being accused not of being happy that their husbands were dead (I agree that Coulter should not have chosen those words) but of using the death's of their husbands for some sort of political advantage and in some cases to keep themselves in the media spotlight. The Jersey Women were everywhere talking about stuff that had nothing to do with the sadness they felt at the death of their husbands. They were placed on a liberal pedestal as political pundits. Losing a loved one does not make one suddenly politically astute yet that is what both the media and they seemed to be saying.

As far as the Edwards case is concerned Ms. Coulter, Brooks and I were all raised in New York and we have all been brought up in a world where the word faggot is not synonomous with homosexual but more often means an effiminate male. Maybe its because there are more Jews in downstate New York than in most of the country and the Yiddish word Feygela, from the German Vogel and meaning little bird has often been used to describe not homosexuals but unmanly men. The majority of those in this forum have decided that Coulter meant that Edwards was a homosexual. Brooks and I contend that that is not what she meant, especially since she knew he was in a heterosexual marriage. She was calling him a girly man and accusing him of being rather effeminate. Maybe not a nice thing to do but certainly not the same as calling him a homosexual.

ALSO, Ann Coulter used the word "faggot" knowing it would offend people, since the current meaning of the word is a SLUR for homosexuals.

Ann Coulter just loves to get attention. And that's fine. But at least realize she does it on purpose and doesn't really have any strong points.

It would appear that you and Ms. Coulter have much in common: you both love to get attention and offend people. Each of you do it at every opportunity.

As far as the Edwards case is concerned Ms. Coulter, Brooks and I were all raised in New York and we have all been brought up in a world where the word faggot is not synonomous with homosexual but more often means an effiminate male. Maybe its because there are more Jews in downstate New York than in most of the country and the Yiddish word Feygela, from the German Vogel and meaning little bird has often been used to describe not homosexuals but unmanly men. The majority of those in this forum have decided that Coulter meant that Edwards was a homosexual. Brooks and I contend that that is not what she meant, especially since she knew he was in a heterosexual marriage. She was calling him a girly man and accusing him of being rather effeminate. Maybe not a nice thing to do but certainly not the same as calling him a homosexual.
The stereotype for a homosexual man is that they are effeminate, which is why the word "faggot" has progressed to becoming a slur for homosexuals. Since everyone knows the word "faggot" has changed meanings, or that it has a semi-acceptable meaning and an un-acceptable meaning, why would you take a risk and use a word that has a horrible connotation to the majority of Americans? Why wouldn't you just use the word, "effeminate"? And the reason is because Ann Coulter knows the word faggot is a word most Americans, especially those in the gay community, find to be offensive. She knows this, and thus she purposely used it to get attention. That's all fine, but at least admit she KNEW using that word would cause controversy and that most Americans view that word to be a slur for homosexuals...which means she shouldn't have used the word.

Of course she knew the word would be offensive. Giving offense is part of her stock in trade. It is what gets her booked on television and radio and makes her books sell so well. Were she to act like just another sweet, polite girly girl no one would know who Ann Coulter is.

Some words that give offense give offense because the listener wants the to. I have heard young children, children too young to know about homosexuals say, "That's so gay", when talking about something they find silly or stupid. Now you can either choose to think they are making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and get highly offended or you can accept that the word has another meaning. Try doing that with Coulter. See her use of the word faggot as being offensive but not necessarily meaning she was saying Edwards is a homosexual. (Bye the way, what would be so bad if she did? Aren't we past the point where being a homosexual is considered a bad thing?)

Hmmm, how could she have called Bill or Hilary "gay" when everyone knows they clearly are straight?Maybe she believes it in their case.
She is not, by any stretch, the first one to speculate about Hillary. The Bill one is rather bizarre though.

1. So it would be like Coulter claiming that .....the Jersey wives are glad their husbands died?
2. She is saying nasty things about how the women feel about their dead husbands
That's not even close.

The original statements were severe enough that they didn't need exaggeration.

1. It is obvious that many mothers who lost their sons in Iraq also agree with YOU, Brooks. Sooooo, I don't know what the hell point you are trying to make.
2. Ann Coulter just loves to get attention. And that's fine. But at least realize she does it on purpose and doesn't really have any strong points.1. This goes back to my point of how intentional this is on the part of the media who create these people.

You're right, there are grieving parents and other sympathetic figures who agree with me.
BUT WHERE ARE THEY???
Do you know their names? Are they on the news? Name a few.

2. Though I have never purchased any of her books, and she's not one of my favorite pundits, she does make very good observations.
Her delivery is questionable.

Of course she knew the word would be offensive. Giving offense is part of her stock in trade. It is what gets her booked on television and radio and makes her books sell so well. Were she to act like just another sweet, polite girly girl no one would know who Ann Coulter is.
Just as you feel Evakian went over the line by saying he was going to cum on your daughter, most feel Ann Coulter went over the line by using a slur to describe John Edwards.

Some words that give offense give offense because the listener wants the to. I have heard young children, children too young to know about homosexuals say, "That's so gay", when talking about something they find silly or stupid. Now you can either choose to think they are making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and get highly offended or you can accept that the word has another meaning. Try doing that with Coulter. See her use of the word faggot as being offensive but not necessarily meaning she was saying Edwards is a homosexual. (Bye the way, what would be so bad if she did? Aren't we past the point where being a homosexual is considered a bad thing?)
Saying "that's so gay" is far different then using the word "faggot", which is, by definition, a slur for homosexuals. It is also different if a child says, "that's so gay" compared to if an adult says, "that's so gay". An adult knows what they are saying and should be held to a higher standard. And as we all know, Ann Coulter IS an adult and shouldn't be so careless with her words.

Honestly, using any slur isn't acceptable. Sure, there may be a few meanings that go along with the word "faggot"...but knowing one of the meanings is a slur, I would NEVER go around using it to describe anyone.

Also, there is nothing wrong with being gay. What is wrong is when you make being gay seem to be a bad thing, which is what Ann did. By her calling John Edwards a faggot, she was implying that being gay is BAD because she 1. used a slur that is meant for homosexuals and 2. she implied that John Edwards was a whimp and a girly-man, which is a negative sterotype for homosexuals.

-----

1. This goes back to my point of how intentional this is on the part of the media who create these people.

You're right, there are grieving parents and other sympathetic figures who agree with me.
BUT WHERE ARE THEY???
Do you know their names? Are they on the news? Name a few.
That's not the point. These women and their protest methods are what gained attention, not the fact that they can't be "responded" to.

2. Though I have never purchased any of her books, and she's not one of my favorite pundits, she does make very good observations.
Her delivery is questionable.
When the delivery distracts from the message, you have a problem on your hands.

When the delivery distracts from the message, you have a problem on your hands.

Self fulfilling prophecy?

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....This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Well done, Evakian, and kudos to Praetorian for telling us about it. :)

This website - http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0885483.html
lists the types of pronouns as subjective, objective, possessive, demonstrative, interrogative, indefinite and relative.

And no, this doesn't erase the fact that I confused objective with subjective.

You are slightly confused dear chap.
You are referring to Personal Pronouns and the 3 Cases.
1.) Nominative Case
2.) Objective Case
3.). Possessive Case
This is an example of the - oblique case -.
English ONCE had an extensive - declension - system that
specified distinct Pronouns for accusative and dative cases.
Thus many requirements for declension in English concerning
the Objective and Subjective Pronouns have since mostly regressed.
Got it !

This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Well done, Evakian, and kudos to Praetorian for telling us about it. :)

So,you're slowly mutating into a deflective Voyeur with
a repressed Poster boy fixation.
Hmmmmmmmm, I dude declare.
Maybe some sweets wood bee in order.
Consume various kinds of Dark chocolate and down
with some Calvados.
Don't light any matches,though.

You can't possibly be this dense. I mean, you're a pretty fair liberal, Dna, and to share my honest opinion, I know you're not dumb. Are you being intentionally obtuse? I find it very difficult to believe how someone with a 3 digit IQ couldn't understand the (very simple) point we're making.

I'm not sure what you find difficult about how offensive it is to say this to someone who lost a loved one. Maybe you should explain what it is you don't understand about this "very simple" point.

Take that up with Brooks. That is not what I said.

You're correct, that was Brooks argument. Hey Brooks, explain to Frogger why he shouldn't find Eviakan's offensive.

Are you really going to turn this thread into a "Pile on OD" thread again? Stop needling people, you might notice that people treat you better.

There are mostly dudes in here, i'm sure nothing would please OD more:banana:

There are mostly dudes in here, i'm sure nothing would please OD more:banana:

Can you tell me what the point of this post is, Decka?