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

Never you mind,Dude.
No one is askin YOU what that Point on yer head is for.

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

because he kinda deserved it, but I wouldn't read too much into it. You know the saying "sticks and stones..."

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.

And just as some don't think Evakian went over the line I don't think Coulter went over the line.


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.

Coulter is many things but careless with her words is not one of them. She meant to insult Edwards and she did.

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.

Slurs are used all the time. They may not be pleasant but they mos certainly are acceptable. Have you read the slurs directed toward the President? Are you now saying they are unacceptable? If so you must be angry with half the Democrats in government.

The fact that YOU would never use the word faggot to describe anyone doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you. I wouldn't use the word Nazi to describe anyone but that is only me and others often use it.

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.

I said in my post that there was nothing wrong with being homosexual. If that is the case why is everyone so upset with Coulter. She is being accused of using one of the vilest slurs in the English lexicon. According to you being gay is no different than being heterosexual. Would you be as upset with Coulter if she had called Edwards a macho man?


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.

The were made darlings of the media not because they were articulate spokespeople but because they couldn't be responde to.

I said in my post that there was nothing wrong with being homosexual.There's nothing wrong with being black, either.

Does this mean it's OK to call someone a 'nigger'?

1. 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. When the delivery distracts from the message, you have a problem on your hands.1. Their "methods" were nothing at all unique. They repeated the same attack lines as everyone else on talk shows.
What set them apart was their gimmick.
That's why the anti-Bush crowd was able to use them so effectively and that's what made them infallible.

2. The delivery does distract from the message, but if you cut through it all there is a pretty good message sometimes.
More accurately, in my opinion anyway, the delivery gives people an excuse to disregard or dis-credit the arguments.

1. Their "methods" were nothing at all unique. They repeated the same attack lines as everyone else on talk shows.
What set them apart was their gimmick.
That's why the anti-Bush crowd was able to use them so effectively and that's what made them infallible.

2. The delivery does distract from the message, but if you cut through it all there is a pretty good message sometimes.
More accurately, in my opinion anyway, the delivery gives people an excuse to disregard or dis-credit the arguments.

It boils down to Class & Common Sense.Which Leftists have
None of.Like Franken and his "Fat,Stupid,Jerk " book Title.
Or Michael Moore,constantly Yappin away about Big Corporations,
and braggin he doesn't own a single share of Oil or Drug Companies.
No,just heaps of shares.
One wouldn't go to a Grieving Moms Home,days after a Funeral,and
demand to know the Sexcapades of that deceased person.
But it's perfectly acceptable for Matthews to use whatever
Tool {Grieving Mom or Wounded Serviceman }to instigate and
start the Debate about how Wrong-sided this White House IS.
It's cheap and dirty politics.
Exactly what fits the shoes of those Fisherman {Media carps}

1. Their "methods" were nothing at all unique. They repeated the same attack lines as everyone else on talk shows.
What set them apart was their gimmick.
That's why the anti-Bush crowd was able to use them so effectively and that's what made them infallible.

2. The delivery does distract from the message, but if you cut through it all there is a pretty good message sometimes.
More accurately, in my opinion anyway, the delivery gives people an excuse to disregard or dis-credit the arguments.
In a nutshell, Dna -

There's nothing wrong with being black, either.

Does this mean it's OK to call someone a 'nigger'?

yes, it should be okay to call them that, they call EACH OTHER that.

A word is only as offensive as the offended party makes it out to be. We are talking about a term that is outdated by decades.

Something hilarious I came across...

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a72/preppyprimadonna/Blog%202/Blog%203/SALTINE.gif

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

That really added to the discussion, DCphdman.

That really added to the discussion, DCphdman.
It really wasn't suppose to as much as it was an intermission. We can't take ourselves to seriously here.

I've got a great sense of humor, and dude..er.."Doctor"........it really wasn't that funny.

I've got a great sense of humor, and dude..er.."Doctor"........it really wasn't that funny.
lol... okay well to each his own.. i won't lose sleep.. please don't call me doctor

dc is just fine...

Okay, DC.

And just as some don't think Evakian went over the line I don't think Coulter went over the line.
Figures. Because using a slur is totally acceptable.

Coulter is many things but careless with her words is not one of them. She meant to insult Edwards and she did.
How is using a slur not careless? Ann Coulter could have expressed her insult without using a slur, but she decided not to. That's careless.

Slurs are used all the time. They may not be pleasant but they mos certainly are acceptable. Have you read the slurs directed toward the President? Are you now saying they are unacceptable? If so you must be angry with half the Democrats in government.
Apples and oranges. A slur used against a homosexual is highly offensive because gay people can't help but be gay. George Bush, on the other hand, decides what he does as President and decides his own policies. Attacking someone for something they decided and can change is totally different then attacking someone for something they DID NOT decide and CAN NOT change.

Plus, when you use a broad slur against homosexuals, you are insulting ALL homosexuals, most of which are innocent and had nothing to do with Ann Coulter and her discussion on John Edwards. But when people attack the President, they are attacking one, single man. Again, apples and oranges.

The fact that YOU would never use the word faggot to describe anyone doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you. I wouldn't use the word Nazi to describe anyone but that is only me and others often use it.
So, you think using the word "faggot" is fine, even though it offends most all gay people and is often used to intimidate and often said while people beat up gays?

I said in my post that there was nothing wrong with being homosexual. If that is the case why is everyone so upset with Coulter. She is being accused of using one of the vilest slurs in the English lexicon. According to you being gay is no different than being heterosexual. Would you be as upset with Coulter if she had called Edwards a macho man?
If you use a SLUR to describe a group of people, you are saying being apart of that group is NOT ok. So, what Ann Coulter is saying is that being gay is WRONG, because she used a slur that is intended for homosexuals.

The were made darlings of the media not because they were articulate spokespeople but because they couldn't be responde to.
How were people not able to respond to them?

[QUOTE=Overdose]Figures. Because using a slur is totally acceptable.


How is using a slur not careless? Ann Coulter could have expressed her insult without using a slur, but she decided not to. That's careless.


Apples and oranges. A slur used against a homosexual is highly offensive because gay people can't help but be gay. ???

Wrong,wrong,wrong,worng...Wrong .
Being Gay is an absolute,purposeful
act to announce an intention.
That intention is :
SeX
Nothing more.
If I'm wrong then please name for me a Homosexual that is
Asexual.Being Gay Literally Means Having a Sex Proclivity.
Nothing Honorable,Holy,intrinsically altruistic about that.
A Homo is such,entirely because of their PROCLIVITY.
And that bespeaks ... a Dirty Mind and Heart.
Really VERY simple,Mind ya.

Wrong,wrong,wrong,worng...Wrong .
Being Gay is an absolute,purposeful
act to announce an intention.
That intention is :
SeX
Nothing more.
If I'm wrong then please name for me a Homosexual that is
Asexual.Being Gay Literally Means Having a Sex Proclivity.
Nothing Honorable,Holy,intrinsically altruistic about that.
A Homo is such,entirely because of their PROCLIVITY.
And that bespeaks ... a Dirty Mind and Heart.
Really VERY simple,Mind ya.

Well, I can't name a homosexual that's asexual, you got me there. However, riddle me this. Name a heterosexual that's asexual.

And secondly, by your own argument, isn't being heterosexual only about sex too? Thus, you, being heterosexual...wouldn't you have a dirty mind and heart?

Nothing honorable, holy, or intrinsically altruistic about being heterosexual either. I'm straight and I think that. I'm straight because I'm straight, not because I'm "honorable, holy, or altruistic".

Being Gay is an absolute,purposeful
act to announce an intention.
That intention is : Sex

Nothing more.
If I'm wrong then please name for me a Homosexual that is
Asexual.Being Gay Literally Means Having a Sex Proclivity.
Nothing Honorable,Holy,intrinsically altruistic about that.
A Homo is such,entirely because of their PROCLIVITY.
And that bespeaks ... a Dirty Mind and Heart.
Really VERY simple,Mind ya.


Where did you learn this nonsense?

Where did you learn this nonsense?

Whats Za matter,can't handle Dialectic Debate.?

Well, I can't name a homosexual that's asexual, you got me there. However, riddle me this. Name a heterosexual that's asexual.

And secondly, by your own argument, isn't being heterosexual only about sex too? Thus, you, being heterosexual...wouldn't you have a dirty mind and heart?

Nothing honorable, holy, or intrinsically altruistic about being heterosexual either. I'm straight and I think that. I'm straight because I'm straight, not because I'm "honorable, holy, or altruistic".

Heterosexuality is a Normal function of Man & Woman.
Gayness is an ABNORMALITY.
Pure & simple.
Procreation is far less Dirty,than Sex with NO Proceration,in
the mind.

Heterosexuality is a Normal function of Man & Woman.
Gayness is an ABNORMALITY.
Pure & simple.
Procreation is far less Dirty,than Sex with NO Proceration,in
the mind.
holy garble there foolie

Does this mean when one uses birthcontrol and hopes to avoid becoming impregnated, that sex on that particular day is more dirty than on the day that one hope to become pregnant.... to quote Fergie, wow...

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

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

I was thinking exactly the same thing... you just have the best mind there sedan.... :D

holy garble there foolie

Does this mean when one uses birthcontrol and hopes to avoid becoming impregnated, that sex on that particular day is more dirty than on the day that one hope to become pregnant.... to quote Fergie, wow...

Don't CONFLATE Mere Fact.
GAYS Cannot Procreate.Therefore any Sex on their part,COULD be
viewed as Sinfull,Dirty,and a perversion.
That's just a fact.
I don't care how Popularized and hedonistic a Society has been
indoctrinated.

.Therefore any Sex on their part,COULD be
viewed as Sinfull,Dirty,and a perversion.
That's just a fact.
I don't care how Popularized and hedonistic a Society has been
indoctrinated.

Baby, I am certain there are very few of us on this message board who have not had sex which was considered "sinfull, Dirty,and a perversion"... by someone at somepoint, somewhereintime...

including.... you, you, you, you, yooooooooooooooooooooou

who,


you, yes, YOU. :cool: :p

Baby, I am certain there are very few of us on this message board who have not had sex which was considered "sinfull, Dirty,and a perversion"... by someone at somepoint, somewhereintime...

including.... you, you, you, you, yooooooooooooooooooooou

who,


you, yes, YOU. :cool: :p

Are you even aware of the dynamic behind the word PROCREATION.?
Take yer time now,Sis.I know big words like that aren't
herd mush around a Trailer Park.But try EXTRA hard and think outside yer
possible double-wide existence.
If not...than shut yer yapper,and go back to whatever silly perfunctory
activety spawns yer ilk.

Heterosexuality is a Normal function of Man & Woman.
Gayness is an ABNORMALITY.
Pure & simple.
Procreation is far less Dirty,than Sex with NO Proceration,in
the mind.
Dude.......that's really harsh.

yes, it should be okay to call them that, they call EACH OTHER that.This is how stereotyping can lead to faulty reasoning. Yes, some black people call each other 'nigger' but many do not. Many who don't use the word consider it a slur no matter who says it. So because some blacks use the word to describe each other you think it's OK to describe all blacks that way? There are probably some gay men out there who tease each other with the word 'faggot'. That doesn't make the word any less of a slur when you or I or Ann Coulter use it.

Looks like Sal scored a direct hit. :thumbs:

Looks like Sal scored a direct hit. :thumbs:

Like I said.Maybe Sooooooooooooooooo,in her Trailer Park
World.
To prove my point.
Ever watch a Jerry Springer or Ricki Lake,Maury Episode.
The most Base behavior and mindset is always APPLAUDED.
Even on the VIEW.Rosie says somethin Anti-Bush or Anti-Cheney,
doesn't make a hoot of a difference what it is,and the Audience almost
fall over each other in Gaga Land.
Is that the way you want to win a debate,
By mere guttersnipe appeal.?
The Lowest Common denominator in Spades Wins.

Like I said.Maybe Sooooooooooooooooo,in her Trailer Park
World.
To prove my point.
Ever watch a Jerry Springer or Ricki Lake,Maury Episode.
The most Base behavior and mindset is always APPLAUDED.
Even on the VIEW.Rosie says somethin Anti-Bush or Anti-Cheney,
doesn't make a hoot of a difference what it is,and the Audience almost
fall over each other in Gaga Land.
Is that the way you want to win a debate, By mere guttersnipe appeal.?
The Lowest Common denominator in Spades Wins.

eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwww foolie you have sunk sweetheart, that is quite below your standard, quite.... I am disappointed... :(

but there is a line in there quite apropo.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by sedan
Looks like Sal scored a direct hit.

well sedan, to quote a Prae ism... I do believe we have hit a "bingo"

eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwww foolie you have sunk sweetheart, that is quite below your standard, quite.... I am disappointed... :(

but there is a line in there quite apropo.....



well sedan, to quote a Prae ism... I do believe we have hit a "bingo"

You Right.Maybe it's just me.
But I never was one,to look Favorably on those who
make a big production {all handclappin,hugs and Kudo's} when they
score a Touchdown or hit a Home run.
These hear Dimocrats are Romans.
They need a Lion and Arena to make ends Meat.

Heterosexuality is a Normal function of Man & Woman.
Gayness is an ABNORMALITY.
Pure & simple.
Procreation is far less Dirty,than Sex with NO Proceration,in
the mind.
Having green eyes is an abnormality. I happen to have green eyes. Are you going to claim that I'm a deviant? What about left-handedness? What about guys who are attracted to bald chicks? What about a married couple, the man in which is completely sterile and cannot impregnate a woman, but they still have sex? These are all abnormalities. These are all differences. These people are all in the minority. Are they deviants? Are they sick? Are they obsessed with their eyes, their hands, their hair, or their non-working testicles?

Or are they just different in the stated ways and not otherwise different from you or me?

Having green eyes is an abnormality. I happen to have green eyes. Are you going to claim that I'm a deviant? What about left-handedness? What about guys who are attracted to bald chicks? What about a married couple, the man in which is completely sterile and cannot impregnate a woman, but they still have sex? These are all abnormalities. These are all differences. These people are all in the minority. Are they deviants? Are they sick? Are they obsessed with their eyes, their hands, their hair, or their non-working testicles?

Or are they just different in the stated ways and not otherwise different from you or me?


Agreed. I have followed you back and forth with fool on this one. I can't see why any of that matters when it truly has nothing to do with him. Why is what others do in their life important to him. Nature abhors a vaccum.

In a nutshell, Dna -

Not sure what this is in response to.

Not sure what this is in response to.He was expressing agreement with the previous post by Brooks.

"Bingo!" is getting old and Prae thinks this sounds better than "What he said!". :)

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

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


I was thinking exactly the same thing... you just have the best mind there sedan....


It seems Sedan and Sal feel sending someone a video of dykes with dicks having sex is somehow a great thing to do. Sedan says well done and Sal says she thinks exactly the same thing.

Many here post from work. I guess both Sedan and Sal think having a computer screen at work suddenly show sex acts of any kind, including homosexual sex acts by men who have altered themselves to look like women is simply fine. Others post in front of family members. I guess they also think it would be fine for such images to pop up on the computer screen in front of their children. Either they see nothing wrong with those things or they think everyone must post in a vacuum where something like that couldn't happen.

Prae posted that the video was misrepresented by Evakian to be something other than it was and Sedan and Sal think that is cute and a good thing. I wonder if it would have been such a good thing had it happened to either of them.

It seems Sedan and Sal feel sending someone a video of dykes with dicks having sex is somehow a great thing to do. Sedan says well done and Sal says she thinks exactly the same thing.

I think they both thought it was hilarious, not "a great thing".


Many here post from work.

Perhaps, but you're of the opinion they shouldn't be doing that. At least you were when you told someone that posting from work was stealing.


I guess both Sedan and Sal think having a computer screen at work suddenly show sex acts of any kind, including homosexual sex acts by men who have altered themselves to look like women is simply fine. Others post in front of family members. I guess they also think it would be fine for such images to pop up on the computer screen in front of their children. Either they see nothing wrong with those things or they think everyone must post in a vacuum where something like that couldn't happen.

Prae posted that the video was misrepresented by Evakian to be something other than it was and Sedan and Sal think that is cute and a good thing. I wonder if it would have been such a good thing had it happened to either of them.

The only time you worry about the content of a post is when it's someone else's post. I'm sure you feel that your masturbatory comment to Evak, or your "little shit" comments to others are perfectly appropriate for work, or other people's children to see. Clean up your own act before you complain about the behavior of others. BTW, allforums never claimed to be "work safe". If you're at work and posting...get back to work you slacker! :)

I think they both thought it was hilarious, not "a great thing".

When you offer kudos you are saying you think what was said or done deserves praise, Vilepagan. Please stop trying to play semantic games.



Perhaps, but you're of the opinion they shouldn't be doing that. At least you were when you told someone that posting from work was stealing.

I'm still of the opinion they shouldn't be posting from work but does that mean someone should cause something like that to pop up on their screens? I guess you think it was okay to do something that could cost them to lose their jobs because, hey, they were posting from work.



The only time you worry about the content of a post is when it's someone else's post. I'm sure you feel that your masturbatory comment to Evak, or your "little shit" comments to others are perfectly appropriate for work, or other people's children to see. Clean up your own act before you complain about the behavior of others. BTW, allforums never claimed to be "work safe". If you're at work and posting...get back to work you slacker! :)

If you don't understand the difference between tiny little letters, letters than can not be read from far away from the screen and screen filling videos you have a problem. I suspect you do understand the difference but are only try to excuse Evakian's behavior and equate it with mine because of our past history.

No, no one ever said Allforums was work safe but other people have posted a not safe for work warning, something as simple as NSFW. Evakian purposely tried to trick Praetorian into opening a non-work safe screen.

Since I am retired I can't really post from work but you already knew that and your last comment was just a bit more of your phony b.s.

It seems Sedan and Sal feel sending someone a video of dykes with dicks having sex is somehow a great thing to do.
Dykes with dicks=straight men?

The transsexuals in question were not lesbians.

Prae posted that the video was misrepresented by Evakian to be something other than it was and Sedan and Sal think that is cute and a good thing. I wonder if it would have been such a good thing had it happened to either of them.
That's a lie! A gotdang LIE!

I said he would probably like it, which is true considering what a weird fucker he happens to be.

Just because I didn't label it "Watch out for transsexual threesome pornography!" doesn't mean I misrepresented.

I am offended, you cad. Absolutely offended.

It seems Sedan and Sal feel sending someone a video of dykes with dicks having sex is somehow a great thing to do. Sedan says well done and Sal says she thinks exactly the same thing.

ROTFL.

Nothing gets past you, Poindexter.

Others post in front of family members. I guess they also think it would be fine for such images to pop up on the computer screen in front of their children.

<gasp!>

Oh, the pooor, poooor chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren!!!

They'll be scarred for life, I tell you!!

:hahanot:

In plain English, you are full of it, Evakian. You were hoping he would open it i a way that would be embarassing to him. Of course you wouldn't warn him of what it was just in case a co-worker was nearby. That would ruin a bit of your twisted and perverse pleasure.

You've really become quite the nasty little boy.

You kids play nice and pipe-down back there, or I swear to God I'm gonna stop this car!

I'll do it, don't think I won't!!

:drive: :mad:

Do bad boys get spankings? Growwwl.

If you don't understand the difference between tiny little letters, letters than can not be read from far away from the screen and screen filling videos .....

Uhhh....how do you know that the videos *filled the screen*, and weren't just small 2x3 sized screens?

Oh wait. Maybe you had to go and check them out personally. Just to be thorough.

:thumbs:

Uhhh....how do you know that the videos *filled the screen*, and weren't just small 2x3 sized screens?

Oh wait. Maybe you had to go and check them out personally. Just to be thorough.

:thumbs:

Maybe I just have a better memory than you do, Freethinker.

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....


I guess that answers your question unless of course you think Praetorian is lying or simply can't tell when something almost fills the screen of a large monitor.

OMFG I am reading this before coffee... and I can't stop laughing already.... OMG....

Frogger get a sense of humour.... life is short....

oh my!

this rocks!!! truly.........

oMG

I offered kudos to Praetorian because it took some guts to admit he'd been had by Evakian. He didn't have to tell us about it but he did. I could be wrong here but I think he told us about it because he thought it was funny. If so, I completely agree -- it was hilarious. :)

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....

Yeah, that really sounds like he thought it was funny, Sedan.

I'm still of the opinion they shouldn't be posting from work but does that mean someone should cause something like that to pop up on their screens? I guess you think it was okay to do something that could cost them to lose their jobs because, hey, they were posting from work.

Firstly, you have no idea if Prae looked at that link while he was at work. Secondly, if he had, his job was not likely in any jeopardy, because he works at a business owned by his family. Thirdly, a person who surfs the internet at work when they know they shouldn't be doing that is already jeopardizing their own job, and it's a bit disingenuous to blame the content of a link for their dismissal.


If you don't understand the difference between tiny little letters, letters than can not be read from far away from the screen and screen filling videos you have a problem.

If that's what you think I said, or if that's your best argument, you have a problem.


I suspect you do understand the difference but are only try to excuse Evakian's behavior and equate it with mine because of our past history.

I have no doubt you think I pick on you because you think I don't like you. Again, if that's your best argument, you have a problem.

I'll tell you what I think so you don't have to make erroneous suppositions about it.

I think what Evak did to Prae was funny. Was it a bit juvenile? Perhaps, but then again, Evak is a juvenile. No one got hurt, no one's job was jeopardized, and the worst thing that happened was that Prae was momentarily offended. Prae's not a prude, and I doubt he saw anything that caused him any harm. Considering that Prae is single and has no children, it's highly unlikely there was any danger of a child seeing those images regardless of where Prae was when he opened the link.


No, no one ever said Allforums was work safe but other people have posted a not safe for work warning, something as simple as NSFW. Evakian purposely tried to trick Praetorian into opening a non-work safe screen.

The assumption that Prae opened it at work, or that Evak intended him to do so, and thus suffer some sort of consequence for opening it at work, is pure speculation on your part, and IMO, completely unjustified.


Since I am retired I can't really post from work but you already knew that and your last comment was just a bit more of your phony b.s.

That last comment was not really aimed at you, but I can see why you might have thought it was. My bad. :)

Bless me father for I have sinned.... :(

Hey Vile baby, it's me who always calls Evak a "little shit"....always have, and likely always will.... 'cause he is a little shit' I know he's taller than me, and weighs more.... but, ya know, I can get away with it. ;)

:D

Christ on a carousel
The new ride in the Magic Kingdom...."Vaticanland!"

Having green eyes is an abnormality. I happen to have green eyes. Are you going to claim that I'm a deviant? What about left-handedness? What about guys who are attracted to bald chicks? What about a married couple, the man in which is completely sterile and cannot impregnate a woman, but they still have sex? These are all abnormalities. These are all differences. These people are all in the minority. Are they deviants? Are they sick? Are they obsessed with their eyes, their hands, their hair, or their non-working testicles?

Or are they just different in the stated ways and not otherwise different from you or me?

Oh Boyu.here we go agin.
Just like Blacks,Insisting that they are continually disfranchised
and owed something because of their Color.
Being Gay,is NOT something you are born with.
However Green eyes or the color of one's skin,are.
Therefore to try and convince Society,one deserves compensation or
sympathy,based on something Beyond their control,at Birth,
is absurd.
Gayness is a Lifestyle Choice.
Being White or Black or Asian,isn't a lifestyle choice.
Therein lies the difference.
One almost ALWAYS chooses their proclivity.
End of debate.

Being Gay,is NOT something you are born with.

Gayness is a Lifestyle Choice.


Please describe the circumstances under which you made the "choice" on who you found sexually attractive. How old were you? What criteria did you use to make your choice?

Oh Boyu.here we go agin.
Just like Blacks,Insisting that they are continually disfranchised
and owed something because of their Color.
Being Gay,is NOT something you are born with.
However Green eyes or the color of one's skin,are.
Therefore to try and convince Society,one deserves compensation or
sympathy,based on something Beyond their control,at Birth,
is absurd.
Gayness is a Lifestyle Choice.
Being White or Black or Asian,isn't a lifestyle choice.
Therein lies the difference.
One almost ALWAYS chooses their proclivity.
End of debate. You are totally wrong on that statement!

Please describe the circumstances under which you made the "choice" on who you found sexually attractive. How old were you? What criteria did you use to make your choice?

Science has yet to affirm a Gay gene.And the humane genome is
almost complete.Just like Mental Illness or Diabetes may be
passed on thru bloodline,Homosexuality is NOT.
Even Alcoholism,can be congenital.
Homosexuality is NOT congenital but acquired.!
Therefore it is Nurtured and/or exploited during one's formative
years.That is why Many Gays,are actively interested in today's Youth.
What better time and opportunity to manipulate and exploit the
sex drive of an individual.
And studies have shown,that Gays,are very active Recruiters.
In point of fact,Gays have a life mission to transform most Non-Gay into
Homosexual belief.
Homosexuality isn't about anything other than Proclivity.
Show me a Gay,who is Asexual ?

Science has yet to affirm a Gay gene.And the humane genome is
almost complete.Just like Mental Illness or Diabetes may be
passed on thru bloodline,Homosexuality is NOT.
Even Alcoholism,can be congenital.
Homosexuality is NOT congenital but acquired.!
Therefore it is Nurtured and/or exploited during one's formative
years.That is why Many Gays,are actively interested in today's Youth.
What better time and opportunity to manipulate and exploit the
sex drive of an individual.
And studies have shown,that Gays,are very active Recruiters.
In point of fact,Gays have a life mission to transform most Non-Gay into
Homosexual belief.
Homosexuality isn't about anything other than Proclivity.
Show me a Gay,who is Asexual ?

Your post didn't address any of the questions you were asked...please try again. :)

Please describe the circumstances under which you made the "choice" on who you found sexually attractive. How old were you? What criteria did you use to make your choice?

You are trying to defend and rationalize a given.
You mean to tell me,that Kids,sit around the house,all day and
formulate the particulars as to why they might Dig Boobs or
a pretty face,hair,legs.Basically it is inherent to normalcy.
I think there miight be a link,to Gays havening trouble,with
normaity and therefore search out reason for their unnatural feelings
about liking the SAME sex.
So,I may agree that Gayness is,at first an Abmormal psychological
difficulty that is overcome when Society removes the negative
stigma of NOT being normal,and it's OK to CHOOSE a different lifestyle
Sex drive.

Your post didn't address any of the questions you were asked...please try again. :)

I screwed up that post,purdy doggone gOOt and you dint even notice.
Therefore I Edited.
I,nor Science or even the Clinical Psychologists,have yet to
overcome what you ask for.
Namely,some sort if definitive Proof,as to where Gayness originates.
But I do believe it is acquired.Therefore Society has some role
as to blame.Just Like Radical Islamofascism was nurtured thru
mutating and falsifying a religion.

You are trying to defend and rationalize a given.

Not at all, I'm trying to get you to answer some simple questions. The reason for the questions is this; if you say that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" then it follows that at some point everyone makes that choice at some point in their lives either to be, or not be, gay. I simply want you to understand how ridiculous it is to state that a person "chooses" their sexual orientation by making you confront the fact that you didn't "choose" yours. Unless of course you did, in which case it would make a fascinating tale to read. :)

Not at all, I'm trying to get you to answer some simple questions. The reason for the questions is this; if you say that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" then it follows that at some point everyone makes that choice at some point in their lives either to be, or not be, gay. I simply want you to understand how ridiculous it is to state that a person "chooses" their sexual orientation by making you confront the fact that you didn't "choose" yours. Unless of course you did, in which case it would make a fascinating tale to read. :)

If yer askin me of an example where someone CHOOSE their
proclivity at the point of a Gun,I guess NOT.
Oh wait.Dint urban Myth,once imply that Linda Lovelace,surely
had a Big 45 pointed at her during the - Deep Throat - shooting.?
Of course people Freely CHOOSE what drives them sexually.
If not than how could someone have an orgasm.
A person can't enjoy sex,if they hate or despise it.
Yer too hung-up on the use of certain Buzz Words.You
Obviously have a slight thingy pooh about the word :
--------- Choice ---------

If yer askin me of an example where someone CHOOSE their
proclivity at the point of a Gun,I guess NOT.

Who said anything about coercion?


Of course people Freely CHOOSE what drives them sexually.
If not than how could someone have an orgasm.

No, they choose how to express their drive, not what drives them. Our sexual response is entirely physiological, and it's chemically driven. When a gay person meets someone they find attractive, their physiological response is the same as when a heterosexual person meets someone they're attracted to. Gay people just respond chemically and physiologically to members of the same sex. We don't get to make those choices, it's just part of our makeup.


A person can't enjoy sex,if they hate or despise it.
Yer too hung-up on the use of certain Buzz Words.You
Obviously have a slight thingy pooh about the word :

Please don't mention my slight thingy pooh...it's supposed to be a secret. ;)

So, you think using the word "faggot" is fine, even though it offends most all gay people and is often used to intimidate and often said while people beat up gays? Continuous use of the word will actually make it less offensive.
The shock value of all insulting words wears out eventually.

I think helping the homosexual community in this way was her intention.

I think helping the homosexual community in this way was her intention.
LOL!

Don't want to respond Frogger?

And just as some don't think Evakian went over the line I don't think Coulter went over the line.
Figures. Because using a slur is totally acceptable.

Coulter is many things but careless with her words is not one of them. She meant to insult Edwards and she did.
How is using a slur not careless? Ann Coulter could have expressed her insult without using a slur, but she decided not to. That's careless.

Slurs are used all the time. They may not be pleasant but they mos certainly are acceptable. Have you read the slurs directed toward the President? Are you now saying they are unacceptable? If so you must be angry with half the Democrats in government.
Apples and oranges. A slur used against a homosexual is highly offensive because gay people can't help but be gay. George Bush, on the other hand, decides what he does as President and decides his own policies. Attacking someone for something they decided and can change is totally different then attacking someone for something they DID NOT decide and CAN NOT change.

Plus, when you use a broad slur against homosexuals, you are insulting ALL homosexuals, most of which are innocent and had nothing to do with Ann Coulter and her discussion on John Edwards. But when people attack the President, they are attacking one, single man. Again, apples and oranges.

The fact that YOU would never use the word faggot to describe anyone doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you. I wouldn't use the word Nazi to describe anyone but that is only me and others often use it.
So, you think using the word "faggot" is fine, even though it offends most all gay people and is often used to intimidate and often said while people beat up gays?

I said in my post that there was nothing wrong with being homosexual. If that is the case why is everyone so upset with Coulter. She is being accused of using one of the vilest slurs in the English lexicon. According to you being gay is no different than being heterosexual. Would you be as upset with Coulter if she had called Edwards a macho man?
If you use a SLUR to describe a group of people, you are saying being apart of that group is NOT ok. So, what Ann Coulter is saying is that being gay is WRONG, because she used a slur that is intended for homosexuals.

The were made darlings of the media not because they were articulate spokespeople but because they couldn't be responde to.
How were people not able to respond to them?

???????

How should I respond to your inane post, Overdose? I'll try to make sense of your whining.

How is using a slur not careless? Ann Coulter could have expressed her insult without using a slur, but she decided not to. That's careless.

Careless would indicate she didn't mean to do it and made a mistake of a slip of the tongue. I have no doubt she chose the words she wanted to use. That isn't careless but calculated.

Apples and oranges. A slur used against a homosexual is highly offensive because gay people can't help but be gay. George Bush, on the other hand, decides what he does as President and decides his own policies. Attacking someone for something they decided and can change is totally different then attacking someone for something they DID NOT decide and CAN NOT change.

Plus, when you use a broad slur against homosexuals, you are insulting ALL homosexuals, most of which are innocent and had nothing to do with Ann Coulter and her discussion on John Edwards. But when people attack the President, they are attacking one, single man. Again, apples and oranges.

This is simply stupid. You're saying some slurs are okay but others are not depending on just who is being offended. That is almot exactly what I was referring to before. It is okay to gore oxen as long as one of them isn't your ox. This isn't just about you and your lifestyle, Overdose although you seem to think everything is about you.

So, you think using the word "faggot" is fine, even though it offends most all gay people and is often used to intimidate and often said while people beat up gays?

Are you suggesting that certain words be outlawed, maybe stricken from the English language because you and some other people don't like them? How about Kraut, Guinea, Spic, Nigger, and a host of other words. Would you like to apply for the position of word policeman and decide just which words should be erased from the English language?

If you use a SLUR to describe a group of people, you are saying being apart of that group is NOT ok. So, what Ann Coulter is saying is that being gay is WRONG, because she used a slur that is intended for homosexuals.

She wasn't describing a group of people. She was describing John Edwards. For someone who claims to be proud of his homsexuality you sure seem upset when someone is called a faggot even though no one has established that Coulter meant homosexual rather than merely sissy boy by her use of the word.

How were people not able to respond to them?

They were considered sacred cows by the media. Anyone responding to them negatively would have been crucified as being mean to the poor, defenseless widows.

Careless would indicate she didn't mean to do it and made a mistake of a slip of the tongue. I have no doubt she chose the words she wanted to use. That isn't careless but calculated.
Of course she meant to use the word "faggot", but she was carless by lacking care for how it might offend people.

This is simply stupid. You're saying some slurs are okay but others are not depending on just who is being offended. That is almot exactly what I was referring to before. It is okay to gore oxen as long as one of them isn't your ox. This isn't just about you and your lifestyle, Overdose although you seem to think everything is about you.
What are you talking about? :@@:

Just as you feel your daughter was un-fairly brought into the feud between you and Evakian because she is innocent, it only makes sense to apply that same reasoning to what Ann Coulter said. Ann Coulter used a slur that offends most all homosexuals; all of which are innocent and had nothing to do with what Ann Coulter thought of John Edwards.

Are you suggesting that certain words be outlawed, maybe stricken from the English language because you and some other people don't like them? How about Kraut, Guinea, Spic, Nigger, and a host of other words. Would you like to apply for the position of word policeman and decide just which words should be erased from the English language?
How did I suggest that?

Ann Coulter has every right to use the word "faggot", but that doesn't make it acceptable, seeing as how people use the word "faggot" to intimidate and harm gays.

Do you not understand how something can be legal to say, but not morally ok to say?

She wasn't describing a group of people. She was describing John Edwards. For someone who claims to be proud of his homsexuality you sure seem upset when someone is called a faggot even though no one has established that Coulter meant homosexual rather than merely sissy boy by her use of the word.
Using the word "faggot" implies being gay is wrong because currently, in our culture, and by looking at current dictionaries, the word "faggot" is a slur for homosexuals. What other interpertation is there?

The only other interpertation is a sad excuse to try and justify what she said.

And even if she didn't mean to use the word in a "slur" fashion, she KNEW that's how most people would percieve it. Which is why any sane person wouldn't use the word "faggot", knowing most people view it as a slur. Ann Coulter ignored this and used it anyway. That's offensive.

They were considered sacred cows by the media. Anyone responding to them negatively would have been crucified as being mean to the poor, defenseless widows.
"Would have been crucified"...????

Do you know this for certain? Do you have proof?

Assumptions. Assumptions. Assumptions.

Ann Coulter has every right to use the word "faggot", but that doesn't make it acceptable, seeing as how people use the word "faggot" to intimidate and harm gays.

Do you not understand how something can be legal to say, but not morally ok to say?

For me, it is not even about her calling him a particular term being "moral" or not.

She clearly insinuated --on national teevee- that he is a homosexual. She implanted in the minds of all the good little Reichwing toadies listening to her that he is a homosexual. Period.

I am simply saying that she should either be able to provide PROOF that John Edwards is a homosexual, (which, given the fact that he is not, she cannot do, BTW) or else be exposed to being sued for slander.

End of story.

Good point. Sort of.

This from www.cnn.com:
Coulter made her comment in Washington during an address to the 34th annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, during which she gave her opinions about the Democrats' slate of presidential hopefuls.

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions," said Coulter, whose comment was followed by applause.

CNN has reached out to Coulter's representative, and received no response.
But the New York Times reported that she responded, in an e-mail, "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."

Now, I’ll have to admit that I don’t really follow Ann Coulter, because if find her brand of divisive partisan rhetoric insulting and polarizing.

In this instance, she clearly meant to insult and demean John Edwards, and to dismiss him as a serious Presidential candidate. But I can honestly say that I don’t believe that the silly, hateful long-necked woman meant to imply John Edwards is a homosexual.

Rather, she applied a hateful and inflammatory slur that was intended to dismiss him as a ‘pretty boy’. One who lacks gravitas. One who looks good on the surface, but who lacks substance and credentials.

Was she wrong for using the word, 'faggot'?
Hell yes.
Will it matter one iota in the grand scheme of things?
No. Because Ann Coulter is not a candidate for office. She is instead a sidelines kibitzer, a professional critic, and a hate-monger.

And because she’ll probably sell an extra million or so books based upon the notoriety of that slight against John Edwards? She’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.

:mad:

You are slightly confused dear chap.
You are referring to Personal Pronouns and the 3 Cases.

Thank you
Foolsworth. Thanks
to you I have learned
to write the correct
way.

Don't CONFLATE Mere Fact.
GAYS Cannot Procreate.Therefore any Sex on their part,COULD be
viewed as Sinfull,Dirty,and a perversion.
Then put post-menopausal women and men with vasectomies in the same lot.

Homosexuality is NOT congenital but acquired.!
Therefore it is Nurtured and/or exploited during one's formative
years.
Actually, it's a triple-recessive trait within each carrier (Mother and Father).

That means it is one part of 1024 in each parent's makeup (2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2). when you calculate the odds of it surfacing in an offspring, the number is 1 in every 1,048,576 which is just about the representation in the population.
http://humanegenomeproject/calculator.com/ (http://pandorasbox.com/)

Therefore it is Nurtured and/or exploited during one's formative
years.That is why Many Gays,are actively interested in today's Youth.
What better time and opportunity to manipulate and exploit the
sex drive of an individual.
And studies have shown,that Gays,are very active Recruiters.

If this were written with a southern accent I'd think it was Free parodying rightwingers.

Originally Posted by Foolsworth
Therefore it is Nurtured and/or exploited during one's formative
years.That is why Many Gays,are actively interested in today's Youth.
What better time and opportunity to manipulate and exploit the
sex drive of an individual.
And studies have shown,that Gays,are very active Recruiters.

If this were written with a southern accent I'd think it was Free parodying rightwingers.

Haaaaaaaaaaa...that was good!

Therefore it is Nurtured and/or exploited during one's formative
years.That is why Many Gays,are actively interested in today's Youth.
What better time and opportunity to manipulate and exploit the
sex drive of an individual.
And studies have shown,that Gays,are very active Recruiters.

I missed this one somehow. It's sad that someone intelligent enough to express themselves as well as you do, would believe such things. Incongruous in the extreme.

Just out of curiosity, can you link to any of these "studies"? I'm sure not, but I thought I'd ask. :)

In this instance, she clearly meant to insult and demean John Edwards, and to dismiss him as a serious Presidential candidate. But I can honestly say that I don’t believe that the silly, hateful long-necked woman meant to imply John Edwards is a homosexual.

Rather, she applied a hateful and inflammatory slur that was intended to dismiss him as a ‘pretty boy’. One who lacks gravitas. One who looks good on the surface, but who lacks substance and credentials.

Gee, Sparky, OI/ve said the same thing in at least twenty posts but have had responses in each that basically said, 'faggot means homosexual and that is what she meant'. I think you are right and the term was meant to men he is an inconsequential girly man. It is nice to see that someone besides Brooks and me understands the use of the word.



As far as Foolworthy's contention that homosexuality is a choice, I have to disagree. Does he really think people would chose a life style that gets them looked down upon by much of the population, beaten up by drunken yahoos, cut out of the job and housing market and generally treated as second class citizens.

I have a younger brother who is gay and I seriously doubt he ever said, "Gee, I think I will be a homosexual. What fun it will be to have my fellow high schools students make fun of me, call me names and beat me up." My brother tried to change from gay to straight. He went out with girls and even got engaged but he realized that he is what he is and never got married. Instead he left home and found a community of fellow gays that accepted him. His being gay didn't change the way we, his family felt about him but it sure as hell changed the way most others felt about him. I will never think that he chose to be treated as he was.

As far as Foolworthy's contention that homosexuality is a choice, I have to disagree. Does he really think people would chose a life style that gets them looked down upon by much of the population, beaten up by drunken yahoos, cut out of the job and housing market and generally treated as second class citizens.

I have a younger brother who is gay and I seriously doubt he ever said, "Gee, I think I will be a homosexual. What fun it will be to have my fellow high schools students make fun of me, call me names and beat me up." My brother tried to change from gay to straight. He went out with girls and even got engaged but he realized that he is what he is and never got married. Instead he left home and found a community of fellow gays that accepted him. His being gay didn't change the way we, his family felt about him but it sure as hell changed the way most others felt about him. I will never think that he chose to be treated as he was.

Well said, Frogger.

Originally Posted by Foolsworth
Therefore it is Nurtured and/or exploited during one's formative
years.That is why Many Gays,are actively interested in today's Youth.
What better time and opportunity to manipulate and exploit the
sex drive of an individual.
And studies have shown,that Gays,are very active Recruiters.

If this were written with a southern accent I'd think it was Free parodying rightwingers.

It would have to be an incredibly stupid one.

Even among die-hard righties, ignorance of THAT magnitude is to be marveled at.

If it were another poster, i'd ask for cites to his *study that shows that Gays are very active Recruiters*.

He's too fucking ignorant to even bother asking. I guess that's why I have him on Ignore.

(Not that I don't still get treated to reading many of his posts, since he is quoted -so as to poke fun at his nonsensical views, the prior one regarding gays being a prime example- so often)

Was she wrong for using the word, 'faggot'?
Hell yes.

She was IMO only "wrong" because she was trying to send to all the simpleminded little conservafascist drones who hang on her every word the message --"Edwards is a homosexual. Do not vote for a homosexual"......

.....when Edwards is in fact not a homosexual.


Will it matter one iota in the grand scheme of things?
No. Because Ann Coulter is not a candidate for office.

I disagree.

It matters immensely.

Who you are and what you are as a candidate --in todays political millieu-- means far less than what your opponents can paint you as being.

It is all about image. And Ann Coulter and her ilk are the chief lieutenants in that effort; the campaign to thoroughly villify the e-ville non-Republican opponents in the minds of the gullible electorate.

Do those from the Democratic side attempt to do the same thing? Absolutely. But given the extreme conservative bias in all forms (aside from the tiny alternative Media sources) of Media in this country, (the major mainstream outlets are virtual subsidiaries of the GOP) the Repulicans/hard RightWingers are vastly more efficient at drilling their propaganda into the minds of their target demographic.

When a candidate's opponents can succussfully plant a negative image of that candidate in the minds of the electorate, they have won.

As was done so successfully with Gore. And Kerry.

You've had quite a few of those incredibly stupid posts, Freethinker.

Right. Because you say so, and you are the arbiter of *stupid posts*. :rolleyes:

We have demonstrable proof with Foolsworth.

I think every person here can readily see the abject stupidy in contending that---

""...(gayness) is Nurtured and/or exploited during one's formative years. That is why Many Gays are actively interested in today's Youth. What better time and opportunity to manipulate and exploit the sex drive of an individual. And studies have shown that Gays are very active Recruiters"".

You should read more before you post, Freethinker. If you did you would have noticed that I posted that I completely disagreed with Foolworthy's post.

I think he sometimes post silly drivel just as I think you sometimes post silly drivel. Your silly drivel just annoys me more most times.

You should read more before you post, Freethinker. If you did you would have noticed that I posted that I completely disagreed with Foolworthy's post.

I am aware of that.

I think he sometimes post silly drivel just as I think you sometimes post silly drivel.

Which holds exactly as much validity as if you were to say --"You're a doody head!"".

Unlike you, I have and am critiquing specific posts by Foolsworth, and have in the past made specific points as to why his posts are drivel.

Well said, Frogger.

Personal anecdote can be used in many circumstance.
I have trouble believing someone who says their kin went to
school and was ridiclued for being Gay.
How exactly did it become KNOWN that that person was GaY.
I'll tell ya how.Because Gays ADVERTISE their sexuality.
They even go out of their way to Laud,flaunt and constantly
bring it up.
I think that's a typical Bullcrap story.If someone is Gay,and
really doesn't want to ridiclued at school,then they would never
say a peep about being Gay.
I've never heard such utter tripe.
Ya mean,to tell me,every kid that walks the halls in school,
knows exactly what each other kid,likes or does sexually.?
Give me a break.
Nice try,but I ain't buyin.
Doesn't make any sense either.

You should read more before you post, Freethinker. If you did you would have noticed that I posted that I completely disagreed with Foolworthy's post.

I think he sometimes post silly drivel just as I think you sometimes post silly drivel. Your silly drivel just annoys me more most times.

Yea,I post silly stuff.Bit when I'm serious,you'll know it.
Not an utter naive,knucklebrain,like some here.
To think you believe that story about a Gay being ridiculed in
school,and never asking for it.
ALL Kids are ridiculed,at some time in achool,for starters.
Plus how did the other students know that kid was Gay.?
The kid musta acted like it.Walking around light in the loafers and
talkin like a little valley girl.I'd ridicule him also,if I was at that school.
School is no place for Soap Opera's.
That's the problem with todays kids.
Where I went,we didn't have all this Permissiveness bullcrap.
Ya did exactly what the Teach {brother} said,or got
punched-out.Or in the least,because some brothers don't cotton
to bruteness,had to stay after school.

Personal anecdote can be used in many circumstance.
I have trouble believing someone who says their kin went to
school and was ridiclued for being Gay.
How exactly did it become KNOWN that that person was GaY.
I'll tell ya how.Because Gays ADVERTISE their sexuality.
They even go out of their way to Laud,flaunt and constantly
bring it up.
I think that's a typical Bullcrap story.If someone is Gay,and
really doesn't want to ridiclued at school,then they would never
say a peep about being Gay.
I've never heard such utter tripe.
Ya mean,to tell me,every kid that walks the halls in school,
knows exactly what each other kid,likes or does sexually.?
Give me a break.
Nice try,but I ain't buyin.
Doesn't make any sense either.
I've been called gay before. I'm not gay, but I was called gay. Simple statistics says that about 5% of the time, the kids (being kids) calling people gay will hit the mark.

Oh Boyu.here we go agin.
Just like Blacks,Insisting that they are continually disfranchised
and owed something because of their Color.
Being Gay,is NOT something you are born with.
However Green eyes or the color of one's skin,are.
Therefore to try and convince Society,one deserves compensation or
sympathy,based on something Beyond their control,at Birth,
is absurd.
Gayness is a Lifestyle Choice.
Being White or Black or Asian,isn't a lifestyle choice.
Therein lies the difference.
One almost ALWAYS chooses their proclivity.
End of debate.

Fool you are across the line of logic or interpretation on this one. First off, black people don't believe we are continually disinfranchised (not disfranchised as you spelled it) by anything. The need to be treated fairly and have the same opportunities afforded everyone else is what is paramount. Don't keep telling yourself that as a measure to think we are less than you or we need your help. Nobody owes us a damn thing and not that its matters because when it did nobody did anything. Life goes on. And frankly if I did want sympathy, or any of us did, it wouldn't be from people like you. That would be insanity at its apex of delusion.

First off, black people don't believe we are continually disinfranchised (not disfranchised as you spelled it) by anything.

ROTFL.

I humbly suggest that if you are going to chide somone over their spelling of a word, you first learn to spell that word yourself.

Good point. Sort of.

This from www.cnn.com:
Coulter made her comment in Washington during an address to the 34th annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, during which she gave her opinions about the Democrats' slate of presidential hopefuls.

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions," said Coulter, whose comment was followed by applause.

CNN has reached out to Coulter's representative, and received no response.
But the New York Times reported that she responded, in an e-mail, "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."

Now, I’ll have to admit that I don’t really follow Ann Coulter, because if find her brand of divisive partisan rhetoric insulting and polarizing.

In this instance, she clearly meant to insult and demean John Edwards, and to dismiss him as a serious Presidential candidate. But I can honestly say that I don’t believe that the silly, hateful long-necked woman meant to imply John Edwards is a homosexual.

Rather, she applied a hateful and inflammatory slur that was intended to dismiss him as a ‘pretty boy’. One who lacks gravitas. One who looks good on the surface, but who lacks substance and credentials.

Was she wrong for using the word, 'faggot'?
Hell yes.
Will it matter one iota in the grand scheme of things?
No. Because Ann Coulter is not a candidate for office. She is instead a sidelines kibitzer, a professional critic, and a hate-monger.

And because she’ll probably sell an extra million or so books based upon the notoriety of that slight against John Edwards? She’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.

:mad:


good post, i pretty much agree

ROTFL.

I humbly suggest that if you are going to chide somone over their spelling of a word, you first learn to spell that word yourself.
oh well free.. sorry lmao... i can admit mistake... thanks.. one of the errs of humanity

ROTFL.

I humbly suggest that if you are going to chide somone over their spelling of a word, you first learn to spell that word yourself.
Who is somone??

ok.. let's just stop with the spelling.. lmao.. we are all adults and nobody is getting paid to be here...

Who is somone??

Uhhh............Somone Signoret?

http://entimg.msn.com/i/150/Movies/Actors4/TH1LEVI0988559932_150.jpg

:thumbs:

Coulter: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,"
&
Democrat Representative Ellison: "The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

These two statements are remarkably similar. I'd like to know if all my friends who think Ann Coulter called Edwards a faggot (and we know who you are) also think that Ellison said 9/11 was a US plan.

I'd like to know if all my friends who think Ann Coulter called Edwards a faggot (and we know who you are) also think that Ellison said 9/11 was a US plan.
Judging by that statement, it seems so. Though I should like to see the complete context of the latter.

Brooks,

We already know Dharma sees nothing wrong with Ellison's statement. I asked him about it in another thread and he refuses to say that Ellison said anything wrong.

We already know Dharma sees nothing wrong with Ellison's statement. I asked him about it in another thread and he refuses to say that Ellison said anything wrong.
Of course not - he has a "D" after his surname - why would he?

Good God.

Surely you don't believe that, sir.
Please tell me from your heart of hearts you don't believe that two successive Presidents of the United States and their entire cabinets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the entire senior leadership of the Congress.....You left out the President's Solicitor General and friend willingly sacrificing his wife on one of the flights.

When you consider that, it gives you an idea just how maniacal this administration is.

But I do believe that a small cadre of people in the Bush Administration --Cheney being the primary one-- knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that a small group of primarily Saudi Arabian muslim extremists were training to fly airliners. Not only do **I believe** it, there is indisputable proof that this info was in the hands of the Government.

And I do believe that they knew this group was intent on hijacking said airliners, (and not only do **I believe** it, there is indisputable proof that this info was in the hands of the Government) driving them into the twin towers, the Pentagon, the White House, and/or the Capital Dome, and that they sat back on their haunches and smiled with satisfaction as it all unfolded.

OK, just so I can get a glimpse into how your mind works:

Are you saying that Cheney and his cronies were presented, probably among dozens of other intelligence briefs, evidence of a credible threat from the Saudi pilot trainees somewhere in the US, that the specific purpose and timetable of that flight training plot was unknown, and they sat back unconcerned?

Or are you saying that Cheney and his cronies were presented intelligence briefs with specific evidence of a credible threat from the Saudi pilot trainees somewhere in the US, and that he knew their specific purpose was to drive airliners into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and the White House/Capitol dome, that they knew when it was going to happen, and that they sat back and allowed all those people to die, so they would have an excuse to wage war, all in order to make their oil-rich friends even richer?

I'd really like to know which it is, sir. And I'm not being a smart ass here, I really want to know.


:corn:

Coulter: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,"
&
Democrat Representative Ellison: "The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

These two statements are remarkably similar. I'd like to know if all my friends who think Ann Coulter called Edwards a faggot (and we know who you are) also think that Ellison said 9/11 was a US plan.

I think that is what Ellison was trying to say, and its idiotic.

On his Monday addition of - HARDBALL's - with guest
Michael Moore,sitting tete-a-tete in Hardball Plaza in the
blazing Sun,amidst a group of college-age kids.
Matthews Love to exploit the College - kids.
He just said - " I love to confuse people ". !
When a Republican girl,had the guts to stand up to Moore
in that shining sun,and debate him on Socialized medicine.
After she was finished,of course Smart Ballsy Matthews said
somehin like - OK You Lost ! and the " I Love to Confuse People " .

Ya see,the thingy IS > That is what Politics has turned into.
Cite some stupid Poll #'s and then blather away,hoodwinking and
overwhelming the debate with Highly-choreographed talking points
spun by experienced Hack leftists,like Moore,to make that
light of day,so dullard,even a GOOse has to use their wipers at
altitude.

Are you saying that Cheney and his cronies were presented, probably among dozens of other intelligence briefs, evidence of a credible threat from the Saudi pilot trainees somewhere in the US, that the specific purpose and timetable of that flight training plot was unknown, and they sat back unconcerned?

Or are you saying that Cheney and his cronies were presented intelligence briefs with specific evidence of a credible threat from the Saudi pilot trainees somewhere in the US, and that he knew their specific purpose was to drive airliners into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and the White House/Capitol dome, that they knew when it was going to happen, and that they sat back and allowed all those people to die, so they would have an excuse to wage war, all in order to make their oil-rich friends even richer?

I'd really like to know which it is, sir. And I'm not being a smart ass here, I really want to know.

And I really want to tell you.

YES.

I am saying that Cheney and his cronies were presented intelligence briefs (and there is indisputable proof of it) with specific evidence of a credible threat (and there is indisputable proof of it) from the Saudi pilot trainees somewhere in the U.S. (and there is indisputable proof of it) , and that he knew their specific purpose was to drive airliners (and there is indisputable proof of it) into some well known, iconic landmark in the U.S., (and there is indisputable proof of it) the Pentagon, and the White House/Capitol dome, that they knew (and there is indisputable proof of it) it was going to happen within the near future, in a very narrow time frame, (and there is indisputable proof of it) and they sat back and allowed all those people to die, so they would have an excuse to wage war, (and there is indisputable proof of it) all in order to make their oil-rich friends even richer.

Yes. That is what I am asserting. Absolutely.

And the reason that I "believe it" is that the members of the PNAC --who made up the leading power structure in Bush's Administration-- had put it all down in black and white, in clear and unmistakeable language.