Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a "faggot"

[trevster2k]

I agree, like I said, she's a boil, but she obviously still has a pretty big fanbase. So what do we do, to make them realize and ignore her? Because until that happens, they are still powerful.

Sadly, I don't believe there is anything you can do. People who have certain beliefs and values are unlikely to change unless something intense happens in their personal lives.

Her supporters would probably view you as a scumbag (no offense) and anything you suggest as just lies and propaganda. It would be like talking to a wall. I don't think most of her supporters are willing to accept a different POV. As we have seen in this forum, it is rare to see someone change their views on big issues. No one likes to admit they are wrong, on either side of a topic. Yep, they are powerful but that's the way it is. I am certain she has been running around saying moronic things for the past few years but thankfully this is the first time I have heard about her in a long long time. I don't seek out her wisdom and thankfully, mainstream media up here barely knows who she is except for that Fifth Estate interview.

That segment of society will never disappear and engaging in a debate with some people is pointless. So I agree her words probably resonate with some people but so be it. My comment on words was that after years of trying to understand why I was being called a chink by people, I realized that those people are assholes. So why should I fret over what they said about me since they have teeny tiny minds and thus what they say has no weight. I pity these people and their families for such ignorance.

So certain words used by certain people are expected and really mean nothing cause it's their nature. Similar to your view of the KKK's definition of the N-word. I engage with people who display intolerance but just express my views and don't bother to waste my time trying to turn shit into gold if they don't get it. I gotta better things to do in my life.

 

[Ormus]

I believe that Ann Coulter sees herself as a kind of "political comedienne," not all that different from someone like Bill Maher (and I think that's really why Maher and Coulter get along in real life).

So I'd say that there are probably two things that you can do:

1) Try to keep this "humor" aspect in mind, just as we wish conservatives would keep this in mind when dealing with Michael Moore.

2) Dish out the "humor" right back at her, where appropriate. I mean, if Coulter is questioning Edwards' manliness, then you could very easily crack jokes about Ann Coulter's penis.

 

[BVS]

English is my second language and sometimes it shows.

Actually you're pretty damn good, and put us Americans to shame...

 

[Ormus]

English is my second language and sometimes it shows.

I'm often surprised at how fluent ESL speakers/writers are, and it's often out of a personal jealousy. I wish I could be fluent at another language, and even though I studied French for over years and can read it fairly competently, my speech skills have become incredibly atrocious.

But even at that, a friend of mine lived in France for a year and never needed to become fluent in French. Everyone he dealt with spoke English!

I know that some people out there complain that "Americans" never bother to learn another language, and so that makes them seem "insular." It's probably true to a point, but, on the other hand, "second languages" are merely for our own amusement here, for the most part. I don't think that many people become fluent with a foreign language, unless they "have to" use it. English speakers only really have to master their own language to deal with global travel and business. Then, on top of it, there come the question of "which language" to study? Is it Spanish? French? Mandarin Chinese? Japanese? And I think that's why many of us fail at becoming fluent second language learners--because there's no real imperative to do so.

Anyway, I'm rambling, I guess.

 

[Vincent Vega]

^My tour guide in Australia, with whom I and my travel mate did the trip to Kangaroo Island, told about how he tried to learn other languages, like German and some Asian languages, but the problem was everytime he was in Asia he wanted to use that language to learn it, but the people there always spoke English with him to learn English, and to show him how much they already learned. So I can understand that it is especially difficult for English speakers to learn another language.

Ann Coulter is one of those people that only matter in their home country. Every country has heaps of people that are very well known and pseudo-important, to their own country. But abroad nobody cares at all.


Ann Coulter is a very ignorant person that seems to be incapable of any serious intellectual debate.
So she uses this provocative language to make people listen, and to disguise her stupidity. People who follow her are at least as stupid as herself, and it's really hard to speak to them and actually get them realize that they are going nowhere with this attitude.

Here in Germany we are paying millions for projects to try to get people out of the neo-nazi scene. And it's really hard to get people realise what garbage they are believing.
People that follow Ann Coulter are probably as convinced of what she is talking about.

It's something we here in Germany watch with a bit of fear how those people get this attention, and also how the previous election campaigns were "fought".
Here the last election campaign was not that much blackmailing, but especially the CDU was only pointing out what the SPD is doing wrong. They didn't give a single proposal on what they would do, but always reminded the people of how wrong the SPD and the Greens are.

But in the USA it's already a step further by making up or digging for every tiny piece of wrongdoing to blackmailing and destryoing the, literally, enemy.
We also have politicians that really don't like each other, but at least they have some respect for the other person.
With some in the US all the respect seems to have left the room. It looks like they are one step from killing each other. And the election campaigns don't tell the voter what one is going to do, but what a "piece of crap" the other guy is. That's such a low level fifth grader would make for a better debate.

Especially in times where the soldiers get sent all over the world and the threats, if real or not, become a serious issue for not only the US, but the entire globe (which doesn't really matter) people should speak with each other, listen to the next one, and try to find solutions that work. The liberals, or anti-war people are not the enemy, neither the conservatives or pro-war people.

As long as you are fighting yourself, you can't win outside.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Actually you're pretty damn good, and put us Americans to shame...

Thanks a lot.

 

[kimby]

I believe that Ann Coulter sees herself as a kind of "political comedienne," not all that different from someone like Bill Maher (and I think that's really why Maher and Coulter get along in real life).

But Bill Maher is actually funny.

 

[tiny dancer]

Yes, and he doesn't show hate for people.

 

[financeguy]

It's shocking what conservatism has become in the USA.

Actually It's not what conservatism has become, it's what nazism is.

These people have nothing to do with conservatism.


Edit: Ah, I see that Vincent Vega has already made a similar point.

 

[yolland]

G.O.P. Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times, March 4, 2007

WASHINGTON — Three of the leading Republican presidential candidates on Saturday denounced one of their party’s best-known conservative commentators for using an antigay epithet when discussing a Democratic presidential contender at a gathering of conservatives here. The remarks by Ann Coulter, an author who regularly speaks at conservative events, were sharply denounced by the candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Their statements came after Democrats, gay rights groups and bloggers raised a storm of protest over the remarks.
................................................................
Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.” At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.

The criticisms by the Republican candidates put them in a difficult position because the Conservative Political Action Conference has been a gathering for conservative and Republican leaders for over 25 years. The speakers this year included Vice President Dick Cheney and most of the presidential candidates, whose presence suggested the political influence the group holds in the party’s nominating process. Mr. Cheney was not at the event on Friday.

Of the major Republican candidates, only Mr. McCain did not attend, but he denounced her remarks on Saturday morning. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said his spokesman, Brian Jones.

Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.” Mr. Romney preceded Ms. Coulter at the event and mentioned that she was speaking later — he jokingly referred to her as a “moderate.” But he was not in the room when she spoke, Mr. Madden said.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I feel my intelligence has been violated by even reading the thread title, and finding that it involves Ann.

 

[shart1780]

Is she going insane or something? I think someday she may just explode in a fit of rage.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well they invited her, correct? What did they expect, it's not as if she's never used the word before or isn't known for being completely rude and offensive. Come on, denouncing it now rings completely hollow.

The Huffington Post | Melinda Henneberger

WASHINGTON - The whole point of an Ann Coulter is to let everybody else in her party look terribly reasonable by comparison, and kind.

And today's performance, in which she called John Edwards a "faggot" and mocked Al Gore's weight, was another instant classic of the genre.

"I was going to comment on John Edwards,'' she told the crowd here at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, "but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot.''

Many speakers today told jokes about Al Gore's heated pool, and there was a whole panel discussion on the wa-hoo hilarity of the global warming "debate.'' But natch, Coulter took it up a notch: "Why don't they put solar panels on Al Gore?'' And, "Did Al Gore swallow Michael Moore?'' And, "You know what they say about guys with small carbon footprints.''

She also referred to Barack Obama as "B. Hussein Obama,'' and said Hillary was already at work on hiring her White House team, "a group of hard-working men and women, none of whom is named Monica.''

In her choice of a presidential candidate, however, Coulter seemed pretty mainstream: She likes Mitt Romney, she said.

(He returned the compliment, too, - or pre-turned it, I guess, saying before she took the podium, "I'm happy that after you hear me you're going to hear from Ann Coulter. It's important to hear from the moderates.''

In fact, he seemed to have ripped several pages from the Coulter playbook for his own speech, in which he held sacred the First Amendment right to unfettered campaign donations - "They let the campaign finance lobby take away our First Amendment rights!'' - but then showed disdain for the actual exercise of a free press. The press, he said, had written the obit of the conservative movement many times, "but I predict we'll be around a lot longer than, say, the newspapers will be around.'')

And of the dozen conferees I buttonholed at random after the day's speeches - which also included remarks by Rudy Giuliani and Sam Brownback -- Romney seemed a crowd favorite.

 

[U2democrat]

I talked to a person who knows her pretty well a couple of years ago and he mentioned that she had a pretty dark past, but he wouldn't go any further than that. The woman is insane.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html

During a question-and-answer session, Coulter referred back to the issue of gays by alluding to the bid for the Republican presidential nomination being made by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media -- how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being pro-gays, and that's going to upset the right wingers," she said. "Well, you know, screw you! I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against."

She added, "I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us."

 

[Irvine511]

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.” At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.

okay, now that is kind of funny.

and i hope Romney wins the nomination. either Hillary or Obama will destroy him in the general election.

and too bad about McCain, he's totally DOA, isn't he.

as for Ann, i think she's an ironist. i really do. she's making money off of degrading political dialogue,a nd if people fall for it and buy her books, well, you're an idiot. it's all very "don't feed the troll," i think.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm not sure at all that Hillary or Obama would destroy Romney. People are falling for him already, and after two terms of Bush isn't anything possible? I'm scared.

Well with supporters like Coulter how can Mitt lose?

 

[U2Girl1978]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html

Wow.

 

[Ormus]

She added, "I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us."

Well, to be honest, I think that if the GOP ever got its act together, there would be a lot more gay Republicans.

I say this out of anecdotal evidence. I think there's a lot of gay people who are nominally Democratic, solely because they're the "lesser of two evils." That is, they'd rather be in the party that gives lip service to them (Democrats), rather than the party that openly bashes them and introduces anti-gay legislation in Congress (Republicans).

But if the GOP did a 180 on the issue of gay rights, like they did with civil rights for racial minorities, they probably would gain a constituency that is, statistically speaking, fairly highly educated and has a lot of disposable income. They're going to be worrying about things like investment performance and tax cuts, and that's traditionally in the realm of the GOP.

The Democratic Party had best be worried, because they have a history of missing the boat, and when the GOP does a sudden turn-around (like they did with civil rights and even with the "Reagan Revolution"), they always get flustered and run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

I also say this as someone who used to be quite loyal to the Democratic Party, but is now so utterly disgusted by them that I almost think I'd take pleasure in watching them flounder yet again in an election....

...but, you see, I'm more comfortable with the party that pays lip service, rather than the party that openly hates me. I figure that there will be, at least, a slower pace of anti-gay legislation.

But I'm not a fool. Which president signed the federal "Defense of Marriage Act"? I'll give you a hint: it was the guy between the Bushes. And I've seen how this party works. They say a lot of really nice, Oprah-friendly things, but, in the end, they always have to prove something to the conservatives. And, regardless of the party, gays have been a convenient punching bag for them.

And they've all lost my loyalty, as a result.

 

[U2Girl1978]

I'm not sure at all that Hillary or Obama would destroy Romney. People are falling for him already, and after two terms of Bush isn't anything possible? I'm scared.

Well with supporters like Coulter how can Mitt lose?

I really really hope the people of Massachusetts aren't dumb enough to vote Romney into office. He didn't really do much for the state.

 

[Ormus]

I really really hope the people of Massachusetts aren't dumb enough to vote Romney into office. He didn't really do much for the state.

And he didn't need to do anything for the state either. The Massachusetts legislature was--and still is--over 3/4 Democratic. They have and still can regularly override gubernatorial vetoes. Even the judiciary appointments in that state are done by a separate group, so Romney didn't even have the power to stack the judiciary. He was nothing; just a constitutional anachronism.

 

[verte76]

Ann Coulter is a hole.

 

[DrTeeth]

I'm surprised nobody's coming to Coulter's defense claiming she didn't know what faggot meant.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

(Reuters)Coulter said the comment was a joke and on her Web site she carried the speech with the comment, "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing." She then said Edwards' campaign chairman's main job was "fronting for Arab terrorists."

Edwards, a 2008 presidential contender and the party's 2004 vice presidential candidate, said Coulter's comments were "un-American and indefensible."

"The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large," he wrote in comments posted to his Web site on Saturday.

"I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it," Edwards added.

The candidate also posted a video of Coulter's comments, asking supporters to raise $100,000 in so-called "Coulter Cash" for his campaign to "fight back against the politics of bigotry."

 

[deep]

Why does Coulter think Edwards must be gay?

Is she implying something about his choice in women?

http://www.byroncrawford.com/2004/07/john_edwards_wi.html

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It has nothing to do with his choice in women, and I don't know why you would even bring that up or post that rude link. His wife is a lovely and impressive woman.

Ann just throws those words around just for the sake of it, as we all know.

 

[INDY500]

I'm surprised nobody's coming to Coulter's defense claiming she didn't know what faggot meant.

I'd defend her if I could. But in the wake of the Grey's Anatomy flap and Tim Hardaway's comments she must have know full well that her comments wouldn't just be shrugged off.
If she was making a joke...I don't get it, and if she was making a point...it escapes me.

 

[financeguy]

Well, to be honest, I think that if the GOP ever got its act together, there would be a lot more gay Republicans.

I think I read somewhere that around 25% of voters identifying as homosexual, voted for Bush in 2004.

 

[BonosSaint]

Well, to be honest, I think that if the GOP ever got its act together, there would be a lot more gay Republicans.

I say this out of anecdotal evidence. I think there's a lot of gay people who are nominally Democratic, solely because they're the "lesser of two evils." That is, they'd rather be in the party that gives lip service to them (Democrats), rather than the party that openly bashes them and introduces anti-gay legislation in Congress (Republicans).

But if the GOP did a 180 on the issue of gay rights, like they did with civil rights for racial minorities, they probably would gain a constituency that is, statistically speaking, fairly highly educated and has a lot of disposable income. They're going to be worrying about things like investment performance and tax cuts, and that's traditionally in the realm of the GOP.

The Democratic Party had best be worried, because they have a history of missing the boat, and when the GOP does a sudden turn-around (like they did with civil rights and even with the "Reagan Revolution"), they always get flustered and run around like chickens with their heads cut off.

I also say this as someone who used to be quite loyal to the Democratic Party, but is now so utterly disgusted by them that I almost think I'd take pleasure in watching them flounder yet again in an election....

...but, you see, I'm more comfortable with the party that pays lip service, rather than the party that openly hates me. I figure that there will be, at least, a slower pace of anti-gay legislation.

But I'm not a fool. Which president signed the federal "Defense of Marriage Act"? I'll give you a hint: it was the guy between the Bushes. And I've seen how this party works. They say a lot of really nice, Oprah-friendly things, but, in the end, they always have to prove something to the conservatives. And, regardless of the party, gays have been a convenient punching bag for them.

And they've all lost my loyalty, as a result.

Let me see if I get this right. Not being a big fan of the Democrats by any means....but if the gays get the full equal rights they are entitled to, a ton of them will then abandon many of the rest of us in our own struggles now that they got theirs.
That's troubling. I understand that mostly monolithic blocks vote in their own self-interest. But as a matter of self-interest, why would I continue to vote for pro-gay candidates and issues (which I have always done) when it is of no personal self-interest to me other than it is right, when many gays are then going to align themselves with a party that traditionally fucks my interests?
I will continue my voting pattern because I think it is right, but part of me is rightly disillusioned and a little bit disgusted.

 

[indra]

Let me see if I get this right. Not being a big fan of the Democrats by any means....but if the gays get the full equal rights they are entitled to, a ton of them will then abandon many of the rest of us in our own struggles now that they got theirs.
That's troubling. I understand that mostly monolithic blocks vote in their own self-interest. But as a matter of self-interest, why would I continue to vote for pro-gay candidates and issues (which I have always done) when it is of no personal self-interest to me other than it is right, when many gays are then going to align themselves with a party that traditionally fucks my interests?
I will continue my voting pattern because I think it is right, but part of me is rightly disillusioned and a little bit disgusted.

Unfortunately that type of reaction seems to be typical, no matter the group. Once you fit in with the "big boys" you don't give a flying fuck about those you used to be with. I think a part of it that people want to join the big party (I don't mean politically, although in this case that's what it is) they've been missing out on. I also think there might be a bit of a feeling that unless they join the "top" group they will be easier to push back down where they used to be.