Speaking of bold, if you’re not acquainted with Ann Coulter, you’re missing out. I’m not as bold as she. Her comments are sometimes so sharp, they make me cringe. I like her, though. I met her last year at a book signing and she was very nice. She’s probably nice to liberals in person, too. But I wouldn’t want to get on her bad side:
A basic canon of journalism is not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years. And that’s true even if you yourself are a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago (an on-air paddling from Bush 41) who hates the target of your own story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years, Dan.CBS’ sole source authenticating the forged National Guard documents is Bill Burkett, who’s about as sane as Margot Kidder was when they dragged her filthy, toothless butt out of somebody’s shrubs a few years back. Burkett has compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon, and rambles on about Bush’s “demonic personality shortcomings.” (This would put Burkett on roughly the same page as Al Gore.)
At a minimum, the viewing public should have been informed that CBS’ sole “unimpeachable” source of the forged anti-Bush records was textbook crank Bill Burkett in order to evaluate the information. (”Oh no, not that guy again!”) The public would know to use the same skeptical eye it uses to watch the “CBS Evening News With Dan Rather” itself.
Whoever forged these documents should not only be criminally prosecuted, but should also have his driver’s license taken away for the stupidity of using Microsoft Word to forge 1971 documents….
The “Today” show has given Kitty Kelley a chair next to Katie Couric until Election Day. (It’s now Day Seven of Kelley’s refusal to produce records concerning charges that she is in the final stages of syphilitic dementia.) At least they’re more likely to get the truth in Kitty Kelley’s book than in Doug Brinkley’s “Tour of Duty.” But Katie hasn’t had time to interview the Swift Boat veterans. [Excellent point!]
CBS showcased laughable forgeries obtained from a man literally foaming at the mouth in order to accuse the president of malfeasance. But CBS would never put a single one of the 264 Vietnam veterans on the air to say what they knew about Kerry.
That is strange, isn’t it? By journalistic “standards”, 264 veterans didn’t make the cut, but partisan hacks like Bill Burkett and Kitty Kelley do.
I’m glad someone like Ann Coulter is on my side.
Update (9/24): This is off-topic, but I wanted to post this link for a commenter.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 82 comments }
I like Coulter too, and Ingraham, but I think it’s no accident that two successful and attractive women — who have razor-sharp tongues — are unmarried.
Wait a minute…I’m unmarried, too. Oh no!
I guess us married gals like to direct our sharp comments elsewhere…
Actually, remember Dr. Laura and Phyllis Schafly. I’m pretty sure both are (or at least, were) married. And they’re both pretty sharp. And Michelle Malkin is rather sharp, too. I don’t think it’s a function of being married.
“By CBS’s journalistic “standards”, 264 veterans didn’t make the cut, but a partisan hacks like Bill Burkett and Kitty Kelley do.”
I understand what you are trying to say, but the Today Show is on NBC not CBS. Its possible that Kelley has also been on CBS of course.
You are correct. I meant journalist standards in general.
Ah, the double standard… conservatives are shrill and mean spirited, where Algore and company are just passionate. Gotta love Coulter though, between here sense of humor and suffer-no-fools attitude.
Greg,
Man, I could have done without the image of Coulter as the naughty school marm from that picture… my gf is going to be asking about the distracted look on my face all night now…
As long as she doesn’t visit La Shawn’s site tonight, I may be able to use the ‘deep political thoughts’ excuse… too bad it only works in election season.
Ann Coulter is great! And she’s absolutely right about Couric and Kitty. Actually, I think Kitty Kelley might be Katie Couric’s doppleganger. You know, the side that says what she’s really thinking?
If Hillary the Queen runs for President in 2008, the Republicans should run Ann Coulter!
Ann Coulter would be welcome for dinner at my house any time!
I find it funny how Right wingers can condemn people like Micheal Moore and Al Franken out of hand, while endorsing baiting extremists on their own side who are no better.
Its also funny how Coulter drones on about media bias without once mentioning Fox News.
‘She’s probably nice to liberals in person, too.’
I HIGHLY doubt this when she thinks ‘liberal’ and ‘traitor’ can be used to describe the same set of people.
Wait a second, Omar. Are you telling me the words “liberal” and “traitor” are not synonyms? My thesaurus needs updating.
‘Are you telling me the words “liberal” and “traitor” are not synonyms?’
This is exactly what im telling you. Well not neccessarily you, but Ann Coulter.
‘Are you telling me the words “liberal” and “traitor” are not synonyms?’
Well, perhaps not deliberately. It just works out that way.
Thanks, Preston!
Liberals don’t like it when they get a dose of their own medicine back.Go Ann and Laura.
LaShawn
Since you, Ann and Laura are not married yet I could start a breakaway Mormon sect marry all 3 of you, and we could live happily ever after in the mountains of Utah!
‘Well, perhaps not deliberately. It just works out that way.’
If you cant see the difference between dissent and treachery, then there is little i can do. By calling dissent treachery, you are restricted free speech. Its that simple.
Ratso, you slay me. You really do. Funny image, though.
Omar, Rick,
It is not you two I worry about… it is John Kerry who’s sense of the difference which scares me!
“By calling dissent treachery, you are restricted free speech.”
Huh? Hmmm . . . How do we restrict free speech by calling dissent – treachery?
Free speech lives! Just ask Dan Rather (ooops did I go there?)
Long live the Pajama Brigade!
Omar,
Does calling some a fascist restrict their free speech? Homophobe? Totalitarian? Nope. It may intimidate them, make them think twice about expressing their opinion, but if they have courage of conviction and some fortitude, they’ll keep speaking. Same thing applies to someone called a traitor. Surely the left has the cajones and convictions to weather these slings and arrows at least as well as the right?
And Rick and co can’t restrict free speech, except their own. The only ways they could get you to restrict your speech (such as bribery, threat of violence, blackmail etc) are crimes in and of themselves.
Janine
I say it should be Condi in 2008. If/when she gets elected it’ll drive Omar over the edge.
‘Does calling some a fascist restrict their free speech? Homophobe? Totalitarian?’
I like to consider myself a sane man. I know those on the left make comparisons between Bush and Hitler, but i know that i dont. In regards to the homophobe bit, i think it COULD be said of Bush. Bush is afraid that homosexuality will ruin traditional American family life, whatever that is. At the end of the day, if you want to prohibit homosexual marriage – you are a homophobe to an extent.
‘I say it should be Condi in 2008. If/when she gets elected it’ll drive Omar over the edge. ‘
I think Canada would have a sudden population surge.
At the end of the day, if you want to prohibit homosexual marriage – you are a homophobe to an extent.
????????
So to want to prohibit something – you have a phobia about that something? Hmmmmm
Hey Omar – Aren’t YOU (by your definition) restricting free speech by saying “At the end of the day, if you want to prohibit homosexual marriage – you are a homophobe to an extent.”
Omar said:
I think Canada would have a sudden population surge
Omar:
Nah, we wouldn’t be losing any AMERICANS, just like we won’t be losing any if people flee north after THIS election.
Just as long as they promise NEVR to come back.
‘So to want to prohibit something – you have a phobia about that something? Hmmmmm ‘
Think about WHY people want to prohibit homosexual marriage.
On another note – heres some wisdom from the raving lunatic Ann Coulter.
“I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!”
“Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave….We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males.”
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”—Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
To a disabled Vietnam vet: “People like you caused us to lose that war.”
“If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country.”
“The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals.”
“The swing voters—I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don’t have set philosophical principles. You’re either a liberal or you’re a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. “—Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00
Woo, go Ann Coulter.
Her amateurish coverage of the DNC was hilarious, and resulted in her promptly being fired by USAtoday. I laughed pretty hard at ready the article in question.
I think this is a great example of the difference between rabidly partisan Democrats and rabidly partisan Republicans: Coulter shows up at the Democratic Convention, is largely ignored, writes a ridiculously lame story and gets canned. Michael Moore shows up, and just by being there hijacks the carefully crafted script, since the party faithful have such an unreasoning hatred of the guy.
‘Hey Omar – Aren’t YOU (by your definition) restricting free speech by saying “At the end of the day, if you want to prohibit homosexual marriage – you are a homophobe to an extent.” ‘
Not at all. I dont want to silence people spreading this lobby of thinking. When Coulter calls dissenters ‘traitors’ or ‘terrorist supporters’ or whatever, she is implying they are breaking the law in some way, by associating treachery (A heinious crime) with liberal thinking.
“I like Coulter too, and Ingraham, but I think it’s no accident that two successful and attractive women – who have razor-sharp tongues – are unmarried.” by GK
“Wait a minute…I’m unmarried, too. Oh no!” by LB
Hmmm, following that train of thought, makes me think the underlying problem is that anyone “man” enough to tame these shrews have yet to be found.
I’d volunteer, but I already have my hands full with my own shrew and raising another. [rib-poke to wife & daughter] Oh well, my loss is another man’s gain
Omar,
Way to not answer the question earlier (that is, if the right can take some name calling without invoking 1st amendment boogermen, can’t the left do so as well?)
but you also said:
I think this is a great example of the difference between rabidly partisan Democrats and rabidly partisan Republicans: Coulter shows up at the Democratic Convention, is largely ignored, writes a ridiculously lame story and gets canned. Michael Moore shows up, and just by being there hijacks the carefully crafted script, since the party faithful have such an unreasoning hatred of the guy.
What about Al Franken? Running around the press area frothing at the mouth, and getting very combative with another show’s producer? Or the Garafolo/Elder incident?
Moore got booed when his chicanery was referenced by the speaker at the mic, and people notice his smug self in USA today’s box. If he can chant 4 more months at the RNC, then the RNC delegates can boo him
‘Omar,
Way to not answer the question earlier (that is, if the right can take some name calling without invoking 1st amendment boogermen, can’t the left do so as well?) ‘
Sorry about that, i lose track of questions. I agree with you, as i dont agree with this kind of name calling from any camp. Its derogatory, and achieves nothing.
‘What about Al Franken? Running around the press area frothing at the mouth, and getting very combative with another show’s producer? Or the Garafolo/Elder incident?’
That was funny too.
‘Moore got booed when his chicanery was referenced by the speaker at the mic, and people notice his smug self in USA today’s box. If he can chant 4 more months at the RNC, then the RNC delegates can boo him’
What do you think Moore expected, a standing ovation? Moore knew the reaction he would get, and to see him waving to the crowds and chanting ‘4 more months’ had me in stitches. He was so smug it was unbelievable. But as i said, Moore managed to totally hijack the carefully planned, extremely delicate RNC just by BEING there. Whats funny is – Coulter claims liberal dissenters are ‘foaming at the mouth,’ when the hardcore partisans at the RNC were virtually hissing at the mere presence of Moore.
BTW, I love reading Ann Coulter!
I love this BLOG! Even if LaShawn isn’t in PJs
Thanks, John!
Omar
You’re a victim of cliche’ thinking. Also, you’d do a whole lot better if you’d get your teeth off the grinding wheel.
‘You’re a victim of cliche’ thinking. Also, you’d do a whole lot better if you’d get your teeth off the grinding wheel. ‘
If you’re gonna make comments like that Phil, i think you should at least take the time to explain them – because otherwise they are just meaningless, like most the flak i get here.
“A basic canon of journalism is not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years”
Chalabi? or burkett? you decide.
Wow…..is it getting hot in here, or is just me?
Well, just make sure whomever is handing out the “application for a date” saves one of each for me…….I’m glad they’re not married, quite frankly. I’ll take either one; I ain’t no girly man.
Shoot, I’d bet that they both see the “B” word as a term of endearment. Gotta love a smart, HOT, and tell-it-like-it is lady like that…….it’d be like hitting the Lady Lotto. One time, baby, one time!! They even like to shoot guns, so who wouldn’t want a lady like that to have their back?
Uh, Barber’s Corner Matchmaker!?? Don’t forget me, now.
At least you aren’t being called biased and racist, Omar. If Ann Coulter wants to accuse people of treachery and treason, then so be it. It’s up to dissiminating people like ourselves to decide if it’s invective or hot air. We need to get back to the marketplace of ideas instead of worrying about who is getting their feelings hurt. Because I coach basketball in a place where I teach predominantly minorities, I get called a racist fairly regularly. The parents, loved ones who do this have every right to express their opinions. Do I like it, of course not. Would I like it to go away, sure. But not at the price of curtailing their right to say what they want. Finally, being in favor of a marraige amendment does not qualify you as a homophobe. In most cases, ut just means you are a Christian….taught to love the person but abhor the behavior (sin). Just because we don’t tolerate the behavior doesn’t make us homophobes.
LaShawn-
Too many men are afraid they’ll have to retire their club and get out of the cave more if they want to date someone like yourself, or Ann, or Laura.
Ratso-
The best place to breakaway is in West Texas, not Utah. There are a couple of towns out there where polygamy is the only game in town!!!
“If Ann Coulter wants to accuse people of treachery and treason, then so be it. It’s up to dissiminating people like ourselves to decide if it’s invective or hot air.”
I’d say its up to her. She went to a good school, was editor of law review, she’s got the brains to know whats she’s doing.
‘We need to get back to the marketplace of ideas instead of worrying about who is getting their feelings hurt.’
This IS Ann Coulters ‘marketplace’ of ideas. Suggesting liberals and dissenters are traitors. This is what it boils down to.
‘But not at the price of curtailing their right to say what they want.’
I never said Ann Coulter shouldnt be free to come out with what she wants. I just think its pathetic when she needs slander to do it. She can hiss and spit all she likes, but when she comes out with mindless rhetoric like ‘liberals = traitors,’ she is overstepping the mark. Its ok for her to do this, but its a travesty when Moore calls Bush stupid? Coulter can get her ideas across without deliberatly being provocative, and she knows it. Using her words – lets ‘call it like it is’ – Coulter is an attention seeking amateur.
‘Finally, being in favor of a marraige amendment does not qualify you as a homophobe.’
I used the words ‘to an extent.’
‘Just because we don’t tolerate the behavior doesn’t make us homophobes.’
Can you give me your reasons for not agreeing with homosexuality? I think it will mostly boil down to – Homosexuality is anti family, homosexuality is anti christianity, its disgusting etc, etc. Why should people who ‘don’t tolerate’ homosexuality be free to decide the extent of their civil liberties?
Omar they have all the civil liberties the rest of us have. What they want are special rights, just like those who support and benefit from race preferences.
See Update at the end of the post for my view on this issue.
LaShawn,
Precisely!
Omar,
If Coulter is an attention seeking amateur (though her resume and paycheck would clash with the second half of that assertion) because she calls liberals names, what does that make everyone on Air America? If you want hate filled rhetoric, tune in (if you can find an affiliate). How about Whoopi Goldberg, Ed Asner, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin etc? Heck, Al Gore?!?
The left can’t have it both ways.
Besides, I don’t think she says all liberals = traitors. It is the power elite on the left that she is making the comparison with. And given some of their words and actions, it is more accurate than calling Bush a nazi fascist, which is the lefts favorite insult for anyone who disagrees with them.
‘Omar they have all the civil liberties the rest of us have. What they want are special rights, just like those who support and benefit from race preferences’
I disagree. They want the right to marriage, which is a civil liberty, not a religious one. Homosexuals being able to marry isnt a ’special right.’ Its giving them what the majority have access to.
‘If Coulter is an attention seeking amateur (though her resume and paycheck would clash with the second half of that assertion)’
Well, the same could be said of Moore. How do you rate his abilities as a political satirist and documentary film maker? When i call Ann Coulter an amateur – this is my opinion. I base my opinion on some of her shoddy articles (Most notably her coverage of the DNC, which lead to her being dropped by USAtoday)
‘because she calls liberals names, what does that make everyone on Air America? If you want hate filled rhetoric, tune in (if you can find an affiliate). How about Whoopi Goldberg, Ed Asner, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin etc? Heck, Al Gore?!?’
I’ll have to listen to this, i must say i dont listen to much radio. Have any of these mentioned people said something along the lines of ‘all conservatives = traitors?’
‘The left can’t have it both ways.’
I wouldnt even dream about calling Bush a traitor,or even Coulter and i consider myself a pretty radical leftist. The difference here is, treachery is a crime, and Ann Coulter is suggesting liberals are committing it.
‘Besides, I don’t think she says all liberals = traitors. It is the power elite on the left that she is making the comparison with.’
Ann Coulter has an irrational hatred of all liberals, and she has stated this. Heres some quotes from her, which i think shows her opinions that all liberals = traitors.
“Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason,”
“liberals are always against America,”
It seems Coulter insists Americans must blindly support the President, or come under the category of ‘traitor.’
There is no limits to the inane thinking of Ann Coulter. Coulter even attacks Conservatives who saw through Senator McCarthy’s scaremongering as ‘misguided dupes of left-wing propaganda.’
‘And given some of their words and actions, it is more accurate than calling Bush a nazi fascist, which is the lefts favorite insult for anyone who disagrees with them.’
So wait, you are saying its accurate to call liberals traitors? Well ive noticed a movement among some Conservatives to compare the right wing Adolf Hitler to modern day liberals.
Marriage isn’t a right? I wonder how many would say that congress can outlaw straight marriage — since its not a right. I’d say its a liberty protected by the due process clause, but others might disagree with me on this.
“Why should people who ‘don’t tolerate’ homosexuality be free to decide the extent of their civil liberties?”
You can apply that question to any activity or viewpoint that interest groups don’t like or support.
The issue I have with it all, other than my Christian beliefs, is that it is being enforced by courts and local officials (mayors) who have no jurisdiction to create law. If legislatures had passed laws and they ruled against them, that is one thing. To compel a legislature to pass a law, that is against the Constitution. To confer rights through the courts without the legislative precedent is a clear violation of the separation of powers.
Omar-
There are lots of other reasons we could pontificate on, but I surmise our minds are made up, so I’ll agree to disagree. Right or wrong, this issue is going to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, so it doesn’t matter much what I think.
“Right or wrong, this issue is going to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, so it doesn’t matter much what I think.”
Not so my friend. Being a Christian, the issue has already BEEN decided. What you think – does matter.
However, this issue will be debated ad-Nausea. So like you said earlier, lets those who agree, agree and those who do not – not. Thus we shall agree to disagree as needed and move on.
What i disagree with is the banning of gay marriage legislation cropping up in individual states, which could soon happen as a federal amendment to the Constitution. I think its very nature is against the Constitution, and freedom in general.
‘You can apply that question to any activity or viewpoint that interest groups don’t like or support. ‘
This isnt an activity or viewpoint. Its a civil liberty, and Bush is trying to push a constitutional amendment to end this civil liberty. I think its terrible how the Constitution is being used as a weapon against individual liberties.
Omar,
).
I think you are selectively reading and quoting Coulter. 80% of her writing is sarcasm and satire. She was booted from USA today for writing the way she always does… why they thought she would go easier on the DNC because they asked her to write a column for them is beyond me (unless they never really read her work, and were just looking for a woman and a conservative to fill out their quota
As for Moore, I think he is a propagandist, not a documentarian(is that a word?). Ken Burns makes documentaries, Moore makes propaganda.
And no, I am not saying all liberals are traitors, but listening to some of the high profile folks, and watching their activities (going to Paris to meet with the VC, the legislators who handed off names of out opperatives to a hostile regime in the 80s, etc) it is valid to say some of their stances can be seen as traitor-esque. You’re very quick to paint people with a very broad brush today, while complaining about Coulter doing the same
For libs calling Bush a traitor: Al Gore has repeatedly said that Bush has betrayed America, and the talking heads on the left (Air America, Chris Matthews et al) have echoed the sentiment. Moore devoted an entire movie to the proposistion that Bush betrayed America. Now add in the contstant cry that Bush is a nazi, etc.
As for liberals = nazis… his regime was sold to the people as a socialist enterprise. Like other socialist dreams, the power elite turned on the hoi paloi and screwed them royaly. The closest I’ve seen to the Hitler = liberal argument is that going down the path of socialism has given us some of the more brutal regimes in modern history (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, the Baathists, Pol Pot, Castro etc). I can’t recall any free-market dicatorships
Now, Coulter is just one person, and acompared to the venom on the left, she is far, far outweighed (not a Moore joke) by numbers and vehemence.
You are right. MARRIAGE Is a constututional right and gays DO have the right to get merried.
A gay man can even marry another gay under this constitution. He can marry a gay woman or a straight woman
A gay woman can also marry. She can marry a gay man or a straight man.
Simple constitutional constructionsim.
The Constitution will not and never was intened to give citizens SPECIAL rights and certainly not for sicko perverted imooral behavior.
I gays want to get married then go ahead, but if they want to redefine what marriage is then sorry.
You’d think since gays like to swim against the current, they would have created another name for their satanic bonds and just leave the term marriage to normal people.
I have other phobias:
I am a rapeaphobe
I am a necrphiliaphobe
I am a bestiaphobe
I am a murderophobe
I am a pedophiliaphobe
Since we are throwing around the inaccurate politically charged, intolerant buzz word “homophobia.”
So the basis for this is defining “civil liberties?” Who defines what exists as civil liberties? My take on the Constitution, and what case law I have read on the matter, gives no precedent for gay marraige. Let the laws be passed, and then let the courts decide. That is the process we are supposed to follow. Can you agree that more and more individuals take it upon themselves to decide what their civil liberties are? More and more civil liberties are being decided by the courts, which is not their function. It is the function of the legislatures to pass laws and constitutional amendments to define civil liberties. Then the courts can weigh in on the matter. It’s not the other way around, in theory, however more and more it is.
JCJ- I agree, it has already been decided. I was meaning “decided” by man. Wasn’t trying to lead anyone astray.
‘I think you are selectively reading and quoting Coulter.’
Not at all. Ive read a bunch of Coulter articles, and im picking out NUMEROUS quotes that support my thesis. How many more quotes do you need?
‘She was booted from USA today for writing the way she always does…’
She was booted for writing a lousy article, with absolutely no substance, that failed to portray virtually anything that went on. When someone asks you to write a COMMENTARY of the DNC, i assume they expect some detailing of events, instead of repetitive insults that arnt funny, and have all been heard before. Phil said something about cliche. Well, im saying this about Coulter. She even managed to slip in a reference to the French and ‘liberal boys.’ If this isnt cliche right wing thinking, i dont know what is.
‘As for Moore, I think he is a propagandist, not a documentarian’
Using your logic, Coulter is also a propagandist. Personally, i think both are.
‘going to Paris to meet with the VC’
There is a thing i heard of once…its called DIPLOMACY.
‘it is valid to say some of their stances can be seen as traitor-esque.’
Thats pretty crude, if you dont mind me saying. You come up with 2 examples, both from over 10 years ago, and have no way of tying every liberal in America to them. What about McCarthy, who accused a huge amount of his fellow countrymen of being traitors? Was he a liberal? Or Nixon, the highest authority in America breaking the law of the land.
‘Moore devoted an entire movie to the proposistion that Bush betrayed America.’
Yes, and? When did i say he didnt? This is a bit of a non entity argument here, as i never suggested he didnt. Coulter has devoted several books, and many more articles to the proposition that Liberals are traitors. I dont remember Gore, or Moore saying every Conservative is a traitor.
As for Nazi Germany being Socialist, i wont go into that – because it wasnt. Hitler sold his style of government by extreme nationalism, and playing the blame game. Socialism didnt come into it. In practise, Nazi Germany wasnt socialist.
‘I can’t recall any free-market dicatorships ‘
Diem’s regime in South Vietnam, Augusto Pinochet’s regime in Chile…..there are a few, but the very nature of free market capitalism means there isnt likely to be a dictatorship. This doesnt mean the system is perfect.
’sicko perverted imooral behavior.’
’satanic bonds’
Thanks for proving my ‘homophobia’ point.
“MARRIAGE Is a constututional right”
where?
Good grief. One little post about Ann Coulter is generating a lot of comments!
“I have other phobias:
I am a rapeaphobe
I am a necrphiliaphobe
I am a bestiaphobe
I am a murderophobe
I am a pedophiliaphobe
Since we are throwing around the inaccurate politically charged, intolerant buzz word “homophobia.”
I think its a fair word to use on people who bring up bestiality and pedophilia .
What is the difference between homosexuality and the other sexual perversions and crimes listed? I for one draw none. Do I not have the right to disagree with those who mistakenly think satanic sex is normal and acceptable?
“What is the difference between homosexuality and the other sexual perversions and crimes listed? I for one draw none.”
I think consent is an important part of sex. Don’t know about you. And don’t really want to know either.
Omar,
“‘going to Paris to meet with the VC’
There is a thing i heard of once…its called DIPLOMACY.”
When you go as a free agent, seperate from the government’s request, and while still in service, meeting with the enemy is not diplomacy.
As for Coulter being a propagandist… more or less, she is, she is a commentator. She is paid for expressing her opinion. I never said she wasn’t.
Hitler’s govt may not have turned out socialist, but socialism was one of the selling point in the early days of the party. Once he got a good base, the purges began. What he did was a naked grab for power, and any system that accomadated him in that quest would have been used. Again, my point wasn’t that Nazi germany was socialist, it was that socialism helped lead to nazi control of germany. Consider it a gateway drug to despotism and tyrany.
Liberals = traitors. Omar, please read this. I NEVER said all liberals are traitors. I have said this before, and I can’t be more specific. I gave examples of how some liberals in the power elite have done things that invite the label. Again. All liberals are not treasonous.
If you’re not willing to read the rebuttle, there is no point in having the conversation.
Oooooh, so consent is the bleach that makes it white? LOL!!
Funny how Dr. Kavorkian also had a lot of “consenting” patients. Look where he is now.
“Oooooh, so consent is the bleach that makes it white? LOL!!”
No. Consent is ‘one difference.’ Which is what you asked for. I happen to think its a big one, and that anyone who ignores it is really missing out on something, missing out on how we think about the private acts that people choose to engage in.
I do agree that sex is a private act. with that being said, WHY for pete’s sake do homosexuals insist on making it so PUBLIC?
I would dare say their sick practice was “safer” for all concerned when it was in the closet.
Dragging the rest of America into their twisted world was not necessary.
“with that being said, WHY for pete’s sake do homosexuals insist on making it so PUBLIC”
I think they make it is public as the rest of us.
Not all homosexuals live in a twisted world. They all don’t feel compelled to wear leather chaps with no pants beneath, etc. Unfortunately, it’s the vocal minority that revel in outrageous behaivor and doing things to “shock the breeders”.
Homosexuality BY DEFINITION is a twisted world and is outrageous behavior. Saying it isn’t is like saying a hurricane is just a larger than normal summer rainstorm.
‘Do I not have the right to disagree with those who mistakenly think satanic sex is normal and acceptable? ‘
Remember what i was saying about homophobes….? You dont have to agree with it – at the end of the day….gays can do what they want. They are consenting adults, and they certainly arnt hurting you and your ilk.
Fine, then stop trying to FORCE (won’t happen)me to accept you in the courts. Just be who you are and keep it in da house!
And for the record, you call label people with the term homophobe. Why then are gays so outraged when people use desscroptive and colorful terms describing their behavior? What happened to tolerance?
“What happened to tolerance?”
Its ok to terrorize the terrorists, hate the haters, and not tolerate the intolerant.
It is NEVER ok to terrorize and certainly not ok to hate my friend.
“certainly not ok to hate my friend.”
Aw. Hugs for everyone. Except the twisted.
‘Fine, then stop trying to FORCE (won’t happen)me to accept you in the courts.’
When did i say i was gay :S? I dont see the harm in letting homosexuals get hitched. Tell me, how will your life change if a small number of gay people decide to get married? It wont affect you at all, yet you want to oppress them.
‘ you call label people with the term homophobe.’
Er, i think what you’ve said proves you are one. You ever went as far as to call it satanic.
Or for that matter, why is it ok to label anyone who doesn’t approve of a homosexual lifestyle a homophobe, but it isn’t ok to call someone with treasonous actions and statements traitors?
Or is the difference in who’s ox is being gored?
While I don’t agree with all of Raymond’s ideas/feelings on this, I don’t recall it being a requirement that we tolerate everything and everyone, which is a point I’ll make to Omar and Raymond. But sometimes when we can’t tolerate, we can ignore. What many in the gay activist community won’t let us do is ignore them; they want to be shocking, they want to be in your face, and they don’t always want acceptance.
I remember when my sister and one of her friends came out.. the most striking thing was their dissapointment that our Republican Conservative father didn’t freak out. They wanted the drama, they wanted the fight. He justed wanted them to be safe, healthy and happy. Same thing when they came out to me a year later. I was relieved to finally no longer have to ignore the elephant in the room, and have the matter out in the open.
‘Or for that matter, why is it ok to label anyone who doesn’t approve of a homosexual lifestyle a homophobe’
I dont. I never said this. As ive said countless times, surely you can disapprove the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ without going out of your way to make sure they cant marry. They arnt hurting you, or anyone. I personally disapprove of organised religion, this doesnt mean i want to go out and stop people going to Church, or the Mosque or whatever.
‘but it isn’t ok to call someone with treasonous actions and statements traitors?’
What? So you think its perfectly ok to call every Liberal and political dissenter a traitor. Ok, glad we cleared that up!
‘ I don’t recall it being a requirement that we tolerate everything and everyone, which is a point I’ll make to Omar and Raymond.’
Toleration has nothing to do with oppression. You can condemn homosexuality without forcing your beliefs on homosexuals.
‘What many in the gay activist community won’t let us do is ignore them; they want to be shocking, they want to be in your face, and they don’t always want acceptance.’
Perhaps some, but using this generalisation to describe every homosexual is dishonest. Im sure many just want the right to be legally bonded, without their actions being called illegal. Banning gay marriage encourages people to hide who they really are.
“Toleration has nothing to do with oppression. You can condemn homosexuality without forcing your beliefs on homosexuals.”
Once again, insert your favorite cause for homosexuality. You can plug in affirmative action, the environment, and on and on and on and on…
The problem is that the other side of the equation is doing exactly that….forcing their beliefs on me. Why do I have to accept gay marraige? If gay marraige is made legal, isn’t it a small minority of the population forcing their beliefs on those who do not believe in gay marraige? Just something to chew on Omar. I’ll be gladly waiting for your response. Great insights, even if I do disagree.
I would challenge the claim, made by some, that consensual sex can’t be immoral. Since when does “consent” trump all other moral considerations? Does the fact that I want to kill myself alter the fact that suicide is something I shouldn’t want to do? If I consented to my own torture and degradation, would that make wanting to be tortured and degraded just as good and healthy as not wanting to be tortured and degraded?
Adrian
Omar, as someone who is by definition an alien, you do realize that our constitutional rights and privileges don’t necessarily apply to you. In fact, as a non-citizen, while your rantings regarding our socio-political system might be duly noted, we really don’t have to give a rat about it, simply because you have no say, per se.
Or are you just posing as an ex-muslim Armenian-British expatriate? Otherwise, when you become a citizen in due time, you can seal your insights, opinions and convictions at the voting booth. I hope that won’t happen any sooner than 2010.
BTW, I just heard Dick Morris, on the Sean Hannity Radio Show today, say that Condi is the only one who can beat cHillary in ‘08.
Go Condi!!
“I would challenge the claim, made by some, that consensual sex can’t be immoral. Since when does “consent” trump all other moral considerations? Does the fact that I want to kill myself alter the fact that suicide is something I shouldn’t want to do? ”
Consent isn’t a simple panacea. It goes into the equation. Take the suicide example you gave us: whats problematic is that its irreveresible. So even if we have your consent, we’re still not ok with it, because of its irreversability.
However, it is undeniable that consent — which includes the capability to consent — is a big difference between homosexuality and the sexual acts listed above.
Omar,
This is the last response I’ll give you, but are you incapaable or reading? I have said in many of the posts here that NOT ALL LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS. A university student ought to be able to read and comprehend, perhaps do a little analysis.
So, for the last time, some liberals, by their actions and deeds, invite the comparision. Some, btw, are America loving patriots. Some are in between. Some lok good in plaid.
Andy,
I’d likely vote for Condi. I’d want to see who else we can get on the ticket with her, esp since even after a Bush 04 win, Cheney is not a viable canidate.
Omar—I’m not sure that you’ve gotten the point of my remarks. Let me clarify. I don’t deny that, as a matter of fact and on the level of description, homosexual sex can be “consensual.” My point is rather that this fact—the fact of the sex’s being “consensual”—has nothing to do with the morality/immorality of homosexual sex as such. Thus, to argue, as a couple of people have done in this conversation, that homosexual sex is morally unproblematic provided it’s “consensual” is a red herring. It’s not the consent that makes the act OK. It’s the act that makes consenting to the act either OK or not depending on the morality of the act, which is established on other grounds. I’m not expecting you to agree with me about the immorality of homosexual sex. I’m just saying that, if we are going to argue about the moral status of homosexual sex in an intelligent way, we can’t simply assume that consent is sufficient to make an act, any act, morally OK.
Cordially,
Adrian
‘The problem is that the other side of the equation is doing exactly that….forcing their beliefs on me.’
How so? Are they forcing you to get hitched to a man, or publically say you think homosexuality is great? Your personal opinion should have nothing to do with how they decide to live their lives. How would you feel if a gay said, ‘I think we should ban hetrosexual marriage?’ You would feel like you were being told to do, something conservatives are dead against, surely?
Another thing ive noticed with this wave of conservative thinking – Government intervention to help out people in desperate need economically is wrong, but Government intervention to help crush a minority groups civil liberties is perfectly ok!
‘In fact, as a non-citizen, while your rantings regarding our socio-political system might be duly noted, we really don’t have to give a rat about it, simply because you have no say, per se.’
When did i say you did? What makes you think i give a rat about what YOU think? And especially Noah, who thinks i dont deserve to be US citizen? I can still voice my opinion on issues, i never suggested i had a more valid say than an American citizen. Your logic is – This guy isnt an American, so i dont give a damn about what he says.
‘Or are you just posing as an ex-muslim Armenian-British expatriate?’
Whats THAT got do with ANYTHING? You managed to pointlessly bring in my nationality, race, and religious aphiliations all in one sentence. Sure, i really pretend to be this…..Maybe you are ‘posing’ as an American Conservative. Please. Give me a break.
‘I hope that won’t happen any sooner than 2010′
I can think of 2 words to thinking like this. One is tough, and the other starts with an S.
‘This is the last response I’ll give you, but are you incapaable or reading? I have said in many of the posts here that NOT ALL LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS.’
Yes, but you are endorsing Coulter saying it, and seem to be condemning me for speaking up against it!
‘A university student ought to be able to read and comprehend, perhaps do a little analysis.’
What i analysed is you attacking me for critisizing Coulter’s provocative assertion that all liberals are traitors.
‘has nothing to do with the morality/immorality of homosexual sex as such. ‘
There isnt a universal set of ethics on regarding what is moral or immoral. These are all your opinions. A married 52 year old devout Christian housewife for example, would probably have a different view on morality to a 19 year old college fraternity member who partied more than he studied, and supported the legalisation of cannabis. Saying homosexuality is immoral is a pointless effort based on opinion, mostly i must say due to religion.
‘I’m just saying that, if we are going to argue about the moral status of homosexual sex in an intelligent way, we can’t simply assume that consent is sufficient to make an act, any act, morally OK’
Actus said all these things, but i more or less agree with him. I just thought id respond anyway.
Now you’re going too far, Omar. There is only one truth. Two diametrically opposed things cannot both be true. Morality is objective, not subjective. You don’t have to believe in the God of the Bible to know this is true. All you need are a pulse and a pair of eyes.
For example, most sane people have no trouble determining that murder and rape are wrong. Why? Because my God says so. Homosexuality is also wrong. Why? Because my God says so. Murder robs an innocent man of his life with no justification, a right no human is given. Rape is the violation of the most personal part of a human being. Homosexuality “robs” God of his plan for man: that he glorify God, that he respect his body as the Temple of the Lord, that he join himself with one woman, that he be fruitful and multiply… The violence of rape and murder, and the act of such a God-dishonoring act as homosexuality, known as “sins” to us religious types, are affronts to society and to the God who forbade them.
People have little trouble understanding that physical laws are not subjective. If you jumped from a 50-story building, the physical laws objectively determine that you will continue falling until a force stops you (the ground). It’s one of the laws of motion. But people tend to view morality subjectively because it isn’t “scientific.”
With your middle-aged woman/teenager example, one could argue that pedophilia is “OK” for some. That’s what the perverts at National Man/Boy Love live for. They can’t wait for the majority of decent folk to cave in to the deviants in our society and allow them to exercise their “civil liberties” on “consenting” children. I really didn’t want this thread to become a discussion about deviancy, but here we are.
I think it’s time to close it.
Comments on this entry are closed.