Thanks, Ann; Update: Audio added; Update: Video added
posted at 4:27 pm on March 2, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Ann Coulter is speaking at CPAC as I write. As is typical, she gave a brief speech full of her usual witticisms, including a few brilliant attacks on Al Gore’s green hypocrisy. All was good. Untill the last few seconds, when she launched into a joke about John Edwards.
Here’s what she said.
“I’d say something about John Edwards, but if you say ‘faggot’ you have to go to rehab.”
I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying.
Last year it was “raghead.” This year it’s calling John Edwards a “faggot.” Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come.
Thanks, Ann.
—
So what else is going on?
A lot. We interviewed a couple of presidential candidates. We asked a hard-hitting question of some of the ladies here at CPAC. I signed my first, and likely last, autograph. And we (well, Michelle) danced a revolution.
Update (AP): Sean Hackbarth has audio of Coulter.
Update (AP): Howard Dean wants the GOP candidates to formally denounce what Coulter said.
Update (AP): Here’s the video.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Why, jummy? Cause you say so? Saying a man has no balls is calling him a wimp, a fairy. Some would find it as offensive as the word faggot. For the 50th time, it was an allusion to a hollywood actor who is now in rehab, joining many other hollywood actors who are in rehab, for using a dumb word. She was poking fun at the clowns on the left who run and say they are ill when they use the same damn words. You are acting just like the pc police on the left, being all overheated about a friggin joke.
As was said above, Ann is a lighting rod. She knows exactly what she is doing. Look at this thread, go look at the DUmmies. They waste all their anger on her and the candidates get to do their thing with more space.
You may not embrace a lighting rod, but you sure as hell put one on your roof if you live in an area prone to lightning. Or did you think the organizers of CPAC, professional politicians, didn’t know exactly what they were getting when they hired Ann? Again.
JackStraw on March 2, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Oh and Grrr. Calling an argument fascist is not the same thing as calling someone a fascist, either. And as far as intentially offending a significant portion of the electorate.. what? Am I supposed to not piss off liberals now? You’ve been had, that hook is not coming out.
RobertCSampson on March 2, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Either you’re very uncreative with your insults or you have a bad case of teh ghey stuck inside you and you’re looking for any way you can get it out.
Is that how that projection thing works?
RushBaby on March 2, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Ahh, I see JaHerer has been over at thinkprogress.org
And the liberals crawl right into Ann’s spider web, bwahahah!
NTWR on March 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Back when GWB nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Coulter took a shot at Miers for not being a member of the “elite” due to the latter’s “sub-standard” SMU law degree and took an even more offensive one at GWB for his (recovering) alcoholism:
I responded thusly:
In referring to Senator Edwards as the other f-word, I must thank her for reinforcing my 2005 opinion of her.
Everyone who is described as a conservative isn’t necessarily good for conservatism.
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM
JaHerer22 on March 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM
many here need to aqquaint themselves with the meaning of “political correctness”.
political correctness is not: being against racial slurs, aids jokes, gay-bashing, etc.
political correctness, as the name suggests, is when the field is narrowed of all but a few acceptable policies and political thoughts.
if you define your politics as your sense of entitlement to box gays out of society and tell racist jokes, then i can see how one might be confused on the matter. and i don’t regard you as part of any political movement i’m a part of.
jummy on March 2, 2007 at 7:20 PM
It’s funny because Edwards is the epitome of the feminized, self-absorbed, preening, emasculated American male.
MCPO Airdale on March 2, 2007 at 7:21 PM
The stupid move was for CPAC to bring a political commentator that is well known for her ‘colorful’ and controversial opinions to a public forum that would be well covered by the media.
It reminds me of an old story about a scorpion asking a turtle to swim it across a river on the turtle’s back. The turtle says, “No. You’ll sting me and I’ll drown.” The scorpion says, “I won’t sting you. If you drown, I’ll drown too.” So the turtle tells the scorpion to hop on and begins swimming across the stream. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the turtle. “Why did you do that?”, said the turtle, “Now we are both going to die.” The scorpion answers, “You knew I was a scorpion when you let me get on your back.”
The moral is, Ann will be Ann. She will say innapropriate and inflaming things and, if you don’t want that to represent the party, don’t yell at Ann. Yell at CPAC for bringing her to a conservative showcase. Ann makes no pretense of who she is.
Side Note: Although it was lost in the furor over her use of the term ‘faggot’, I think the funny part was actually that she spoke about the real candidates at length then had a one-liner throwaway remark about Mr. Edwards. Basically implying that his candidacy isn’t even worth discussing.
JadeNYU on March 2, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Wow! Some “interesting” (am I even ALLLOWED to say that?) reactions here.
I thought it was really pretty funny. I don’t think the point of the joke was to call Edwards a faggot, I think it was a total shot at P.C.
P.C. of language where obscene/cuss words have been moved into the “good” category and ANY word that might hurt someone’s feelings has been made “bad / hateful”, unless its directed at the right.
Its also a dig at the insane concept that if you don’t toe the P.C. line, you are ordered into treatment, or sensitivity training, or some other psycho-babble B.S.
Then its a decent jab at the hypocricy of the left, who’s champions can get away with calling people they disagree with any vile / digusting term they decide to vomit forth and not only get a “pass” on it, but get a rousing round of applause to go along with it.
Finally, its a hit at a guy who’s obsession with his “looks” borders on the pyschotic and only pales slightly in comparison to Monsier Kerry’s obsession. Oh, and a guy who absolutely oozes a sense of effiminence.
Gads, what ever happened to the old saying that: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but WORDS will never hurt me” Sheesh people, cowboy up a little! The coddling we are foisting upon ourselves is NOT a strength of national character!
Fatal on March 2, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Anne’s been walking this street for a while now. She doesn’t know when to stop. Probably just needs laid.
Griz on March 2, 2007 at 7:28 PM
lol!
sit down, bro. you’re doing it wrong.
jummy on March 2, 2007 at 7:28 PM
The Left is succeeding. It’s turned many of you into PC, humorless, Liberal-lites! Not quite as insane as the real thing but well on the way.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 7:28 PM
The right to offend is in Constitution. It’s called Freedom Of Speech. You may not like it, which is your prerogative, but it can’t be censured unless, of course, you work in Hollywood where you are sent to re-hab to get your thinking straight, or find a new job.
Listening and reading Coulter since she came on the scene, you begin to understand that she has a larger purpose in her outrageous statements. They are the tools she uses to get the larger purpose fully aired in the Media, as she did when the democrats were exploiting the Jersey Girls and other families. Last I checked, the democrats aren’t doing that any more.
GO ANNE!
pocomoco on March 2, 2007 at 7:30 PM
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but WORDS will never hurt me” Sheesh people, cowboy up a little!
Fatal on March 2, 2007 at 7:23 PM
If she had referred to Barack Obama as “that jungle bunny,” I’d be “cowboying up” alright.
(Disclaimer: I’m of the same tribe as Obama.)
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 7:31 PM
“how come liberals can molest little girls and win an oscar, but if a republican tries to molest a little girl…”
it is the stupidest form of whining i’ve ever heard.
“how come blacks can … but if a white guy…”
jummy on March 2, 2007 at 7:35 PM
pejorative aimed at all gays?
Hahahahahaha
In High school there were guys were were known to be gay, but they weren’t considered “faggots.” If they were cool (sensible) and minded their own business and knew how to jerk the teachers’ chains in funny and clever ways, they were safe from the “faggots” term. It was a term reserved for the annoying morons, hetro male or female, such as the teachers’ pets, who were fond of tattle-tailing.
You jummy, with your exaggerated whining are in danger of falling into that category of class annoyance.
naliaka on March 2, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Treach wins this thread.
spmat on March 2, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Ann’s book, Godless, is exhaustively researched and extensively footnoted. If watchacallit is really a closet BundleOfTwigs, I’m sure she has the proof to back it up!
RushBaby on March 2, 2007 at 7:37 PM
“right bro. if i was speaking at cpac, i’d be like, ‘how many aids fags does it take to screw in a lightbulb?’ and if anybody so much as frowned at me, i’d screech like a bitch that they can’t handle my ‘free speech.’”
TheRealConservative
jummy on March 2, 2007 at 7:38 PM
It’s pretty disappointment that so many are so willing to excuse the public use, by a prominent conservative, of an anti-gay slur.
This isn’t the PC-ification of language. It’s basic civility. “Faggot” is no more a defensible part of the discourse than “kyke” or “nigger”.
Don’t bother disagreeing. You’re wrong.
Centerfire on March 2, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Why, because you don’t have an answer to it? Come on Jummy, you got to do better than that! Why IS that the case? Why is okay for some, but not others and who in the HELL gets to make the decision? Last time I looked, none of us were walking on water.
Sheesh
Fatal on March 2, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Oh, boo hoo…
JackM on March 2, 2007 at 7:43 PM
I posted too soon, the answer to my question is obviously Centerfire.
Fatal on March 2, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I personally think Silky Pony Edwards is a “dandy”. But Ann should not swing so low so often.
As for classy conservatives, I agree with Jackstraw, Michelle is at the top of the list.
Zorro on March 2, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Lott was not a better majority leader than Frist. They were both equally bad putting self interest over the needs of the party. Frist with his online gambling fiasco and Lott’s current persecution of the insurance industry. We turned on Lott because he is a big gov’t loving, unreconstructed Southern pinhead.
Bill C on March 2, 2007 at 7:47 PM
jummy is just using this topic as an excuse to post the dirtiest drivel he thinks he can get away with. An exercise in narcissism. I know a family of four sisters, they always called each other faggots every time they got in a fight with each other. They’re still talking to each other and if anyone stuck their nose in and tried to correct them they’d turn around and call that person a faggot, too. If they saw Edwards with that ridiculous compact in his hand doing his hair, they’d call him a faggot. Translation: WIMP and LOSER.
We obviously do not swing in the crasser circles that jummy does, since no one I know would ever associate “faggot” with prostitution, gay or otherwise,and I am surprised to find someone who’s first reaction is to associate it with such activities.
naliaka on March 2, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Don’t be a moron, Fatal. Regardless of what people in this thread are busily trying to convince themselves of, the word “faggot” is in modern usage an anti-gay slur, period.
Respectable people don’t use anti-gay slurs, or anti-black slurs, or anti-Jew slurs. Coulter, and the people defending her, are contemptible buffoons.
Centerfire on March 2, 2007 at 7:51 PM
I’m dumbfounded at all the bruised sensitivities around the blogosphere about Ann Coulter’s aside. Has the Marcotte(?)/Edwards contretemp caused everyone to evacuate their spines? Is everybody knocking their knees hoping that they might get the next call to head up Politician X’s blog efforts?
Get a life.
thegreatbeast on March 2, 2007 at 7:52 PM
As an epithet for Edwards, I think “Silky Pony” is much more to the point.
As for Presidential character, it’s feminine pieties and preoccupations in the Chief Executive that are disturbing, not homosexuality per se. It seems one need not oppose a candidate for having some sort of homosexual taste, provided he seems apt to handle the whole matter quietly, and provided he’s otherwise masculine, or manly, to revive an old word. He might merit some excuse for liking to pound twink ass, provided he views events and his own work relentlessly from the standpoint of national security or even higher concerns.
Kralizec on March 2, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Its about context Jummy. She was joking. Comics can get away with joking about taboo subjects. All we are saying is that if black comics can get away with using language that is derisive of white people then the opposite should be true. And even if that is allowed it doesn’t make what they say funny. Michael Richards was not funny but I kinda know where he was trying to go with the joke so I don’t call what he said as racist. Just not funny.
Bill C on March 2, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Centerfire
You might, might, might have a point if the “slur” was aimed at someone who was actually gay.
Would you similarly go off the deep-end if someone called a white guy a “nigger”? Or heck, if a black guy called another black guy a “nigger”? Because, unless you would hold every single one of those people out to be “contemptible buffoons”, or people who are not “repectable”, then you are nothing more than an apologist for whatever the current P.C. views are (and thus one of the targes Anne was shooting at).
Oh, and your judgmentalism is absolutely abhorent! (In case you can’t quite figure it out, that’s meant tongue in cheek!)
Fatal on March 2, 2007 at 8:04 PM
If [naliaka's sisters] saw Edwards with that ridiculous compact in his hand doing his hair, they’d call him a faggot. Translation: WIMP and LOSER.
naliaka on March 2, 2007 at 7:50 PM
What happens in a private setting is different from what happens in a public forum–though I do think that personal, private behavior is a great indication of character, too. I used to use the f-word in the manner you’ve spelled out also. I stopped doing it because it was offensive–not to the spineless sorts that you’re talking about (I didn’t mind offending them), but to the group for which it is actually meant. (Forgive me for invoking the ‘personal is political’ ghost. However, sometimes it’s true.)
Edwards might be better described as a metrosexual.
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 8:09 PM
I’m 48. When the kids on the playground called someone a fag it had nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation (f**k I hate that phrase). It was about their attitude: cowardly, effeminate, girly, light-weight, afraid, chicken. Jeez, you people that whine on and on about Ann using the term faggot are like the PC police. The term she used describes Edwards perfectly (though I would have said he’s a Jew-hating faggot). I don’t care that the term offends fags (or anybody else for that matter).
Andy in Agoura Hills on March 2, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Fatal, again I must demand that you not be a moron. It doesn’t matter whether or not Edwards is actually gay. Calling him a faggot is a despicable insult under any circumstances.
As for this:
As a matter of fact, yes. Use a bigoted insult without apparent irony, or defend such use, and you’ve helpfully self-identified as a contemptible buffoon. If that makes me one of the target Coulter was shooting at? Good; I don’t need or want people like her on my side.
Centerfire on March 2, 2007 at 8:19 PM
I’m 28. When the kids on the playground called me a fag it had everything to do with my incorrectly perceived sexual orientation (I hate that phrase, too!). Maybe in your generation it meant something else, just like the word “gay” used to mean “happy, jolly, bright, etc.” Languages change, and I can tell you firsthand that, in my generation, the word “faggot” means something completely different than a bundle of sticks or a weak man.
flutejpl on March 2, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Don’t disagree with that. I think Ann used the word “faggot” just like she has heard it used – by millions of High Schoolers and gazillions of people who have been in High School – and WIMP/LOSER is the meaning. Until jummy came up with that other, sleazier definition, I’d never heard of it. So, ironically, Ann’s use of it (adhering to the most common venacular) was CLEANER and LESS OFFENSIVE than the way jummy used it. So, what’s with all the hoo-hah? I suspect that those who are making a big deal of this are quite aware of how most people use it and are simply being disingenious.
naliaka on March 2, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Interesting points of view in this thread. Too many to address, no?
This all depends on what you do or don’t find offensive. If there had been a derision of some group you do like you would be up in arms.
Something is deemed offensive if it derides a significantly large group of people. You know, like homosexuals. There’s lots of ‘em!
The difference in this case is the perception of free will. I would guess a majority of conservatives believe being gay is a choice (a bad one) therefore they bring it upon themselves; as opposed to, say, Latinos who were born that way so you can’t disparage them for that.
For those of you who are offended, I honestly can’t believe you are surprised that she said something like this. She’s been as vile as the left for a while. No matter, she’ll be on Hannity next week and say something you like and maybe you’ll forget about it.
Whether or not you found it offensive, you should bemoan the fact that she said it. I understand and agree with many opinions on the hazards of an overly p.c. society (what kind of rehab should she go to?), but defending the use of the word “faggot” in those terms is a battle you will lose.
As for those of you saying the left has been doing it for years, the wise O’Reilly says “Bad behavior does not excuse bad behavior”
SouthernDem on March 2, 2007 at 8:35 PM
And by the way, the big winner in this is, of course, Ms. Coulter. Face Time, baby!
SouthernDem on March 2, 2007 at 8:42 PM
The problem with Ann is that after she makes her points, she needs to stop talking. She doesn’t know when to stop and carries it over the line, not much mind you, but enough to make people who should be standing up for her, roll their eyes.
vcferlita on March 2, 2007 at 8:42 PM
I agree that the joke was tasteless.
But I certainly dont give alot of credit to liberals when they allow democratic LAWMAKERS to make outrageous and offensive comments all the time and have no word of complaint about them.
Coulter is not the equavalent John Conyers or Barney Frank or even Cynthia McKinney
William Amos on March 2, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Same friggin thing she said a month ago. On TV. This is NOT news.
For those of you who still don’t get this, hard as it may be to believe, Ann was making a comment on the hypocricy of liberals who run to rehab when they use the word faggot in public.
As I mentioned, like an hour ago
Clear? A joke. A parody. A comment on they hypocricy of liberals. The same thing she said a figgin month ago on FOX and none of you got twisted then so stop with the ridiculous outrage and understand what she said.
This couldn’t be more clear and it’s a shame it gets posted as a slam against her on a leading conservative web site.
JackStraw on March 2, 2007 at 8:46 PM
So, what’s with all the hoo-hah? I suspect that those who are making a big deal of this are quite aware of how most people use it and are simply being disingenious. How most people use it? Which ‘most people?’
See flutejpl (who is 28) on March 2, 2007 at 8:22 PM:Maybe in your [Andy in Agoura Hills who is 48] generation it meant something else, just like the word “gay” used to mean “happy, jolly, bright, etc.” Languages change, and I can tell you firsthand that, in my generation, the word “faggot” means something completely different than a bundle of sticks or a weak man.
I happen to be of Andy’s generation (46 this year and a few months older than Coulter), but I do know that this particular f-word is offensive to homosexuals. That’s why I don’t use it–in public or private.
Most comparisons to racial discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination are faulty simply because of the nature of race versus sexual practices, but this one is not. I don’t want anyone referring to me (or anyone else) using pejoratives that exist for my race, so, in turn, I don’t use (perceived) pejoratives for others which involve their race and/or their behavior as long as that behavior doesn’t hurt someone else.
I’m a little surprised that people like you, naliaka, are having problems with this concept–others, not so much. (I remember misunderstanding one of your comments in the past, but subsequent observation has let me know that I was mistaken.) Homosexuals consider the f-word to be a slur, whether it’s hurled at some who is homosexual or not. What’s the problem with not using the word?
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Centerfire
Your naivete’ astounds me. At the end of your statement you should add: In public.
pocomoco on March 2, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Wow! We’re up to 136 comments as I write this! I really hadn’t thought it was that remarkable. I’m sure this is evidence that we on the Right have some philosophical housecleaning to do. Once we squeezed out the Left in the ‘94 election we wasted little time in turning on each other, which helps explain the ‘06 elections in part. I’m sure none of us advocates harsh language for the sake of harsh language, but in a age when spin doctors grab onto the least vagueness in what we say and turn it into a weapon against us, I maintain that we have to err on the side of clarity. Even if that means being brutally honest sometimes. I don’t think that Edwards is a homosexual. However, I’m quite confident that he doesn’t have the balls to govern in a world where men cut the heads off of teenage Catholic schoolgirls just to make a point. If calling him a faggot keeps this Neville Chamberlain wannabe out of the White House, so be it.
dostrick on March 2, 2007 at 8:50 PM
As for those of you saying the left has been doing it for years, the wise [sic] O’Reilly says “Bad behavior does not excuse bad behavior”
SouthernDem on March 2, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Amen!
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Centerfire
Your repeated use of the term “moron” is really starting to hurt my feelings, and calling me a “comtemptible buffon” just makes me want to cry. Perhaps you should check your hatefulness at the door.
It hurts just like it does when Chris Rock calls me a “cracker” or Eddie Murphy calls me a “honkey” or Richard Pryor calls me “whitey”. All those evil, evil comedians out there using such hurtful, hateful, un-correct language, just like Ann Coulter does – what horrid people!
Oh, maybe they are using it in a way that is okay with you?
Well, then, I guess as long as its used WITH apparent irony, its okay? Is that they way Ann used it? Is it okay if I am gay? If I am married to a gay? If my kids are gay? All these rules to remember, what is a poor moronic comtemptible buffoon to do when the P.C. police come calling?
Sheesh
Fatal on March 2, 2007 at 8:54 PM
I understand perfectly what’s going on. There is rank hypocrisy. Just look at that little tabulation Gateway Pundit did this week about the use of profanity in Left Blogs outpaces right/middle blogs by a factor of 40-1. Using profanity and slurs to describe ANYONE, ANYTIME is abusive. No one in the whole wide world apart from “gays” have been insulted, demeaned or abused? Of course people have, insults go on all day long. The people who shrug it off or deflect them are called winners. People who whinge and whine are called losers. I counsel my kids to always speak well, so they never have to apologize for a distastful word. They spend their days with kids who have not been counseled in that way. They can’t roll up in the fetal position and cry that life ain’t fair. I tell them to learn how to keep a sense of humor, while not picking up those bad habits. Ann’s comment pales in comparison to many, many Left commentators, so just it seems silly to see people who never rein in their tongues suddenly go all queasy.
Thank you tho’ for your earlier comment – that you did take the time to get to know me better (prose-wise). :)
naliaka on March 2, 2007 at 9:09 PM
This mock outrage at Ann Coulter is not only PC at its worst but also truly clueless. She has never been anti-gay; in fact, she has constantly criticized liberals for being anti-homosexual, even while they put up speech codes everywhere. Just look at their reaction to Mark Foley and their attempted outing of gay Republicans who dare to go against the liberal agenda.
The liberal language police have declared that no one should use the terms such as “raghead,” or “faggot,” criticize anyone with liberal infallibility, or offend liberals. Wimpy conservatives tremble with fear about liberals’ indignation.
She doesn’t care if she offends. Good for her. Silky Pony deserves the swipe.
If Ann Coulter had a record of being bigoted, I would be offended. She doesn’t, and if you think she does, show the proof by giving quotes. However, she does have a record for challenging liberal speech codes.
januarius on March 2, 2007 at 9:11 PM
What’s the problem with burning just that book?
What’s the problem with banning just that religion?
If Homosexuals want to suddenly take ownership of a word that comes from old English and was used to describe obnoxious old women, and was used by my generation here in New England nearly exclusively as a way to describe gutless heterosexuals and taunt your friends into doing something risky and often stupid, then they better get some thicker skin.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 9:11 PM
It hurts just like it does when Chris Rock calls me a “cracker” or Eddie Murphy calls me a “honkey” or Richard Pryor calls me “whitey”.
Fatal on March 2, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Which is why they shouldn’t use such words. I don’t.
After finding out that I was black, a certain regular (presumably white) commenter here responded to one of my comments involving race using “whitey” as an adjective. I was offended for two reasons: that the person used the word and that the person assumed that I would be okay with its use.
Change of subject (sort of): how many people here were okay with the Left slinging pejoratives at Michelle which involved her heritage and/or stereotypes of Filipinas?
Likely, no one.
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 9:11 PM
What’s the problem with burning just that book?
What’s the problem with banning just that religion?
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 9:11 PM
I just love how the expectation of simple polite behavior turns into burning or banning something. “Burn” that straw man, Big Old Dog.
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 9:14 PM
It was tastless, but funny. Over the line, but a home run. It was crude and rude, but accurate. Uncalled for, but he asked for it.
So he stepped into the limelight, comb in hand and Ann gave him a funny over the line accurate joke that was a home run for her fans.
Meanwhile, it was tastless, crude, rude, over the line uncalled for remark.
There…everyone is happy now. Goodnight, have a nice weekend.
right2bright on March 2, 2007 at 9:15 PM
I really disdain “moral outrage” pieces. As a “faggot” it really amuses me when people get outraged at a word that we use amongst ourselves all the time Gimme a break.
Edwards IS a girlie man…he’s also DUMB!
SouthernGent on March 2, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Expectations are just that and are often not met in the real world. They are not fascistic demands.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Thats’ an interesting point you just made. Is “faggot” used as “loser” primarily in New England? Could it be a regional usage, like “soda” instead of “pop” or “ice cold tonic” (very small NE regional usage) or “cabinets” or my favorite, “bubblers” I grew up in New England – isn’t Ann from New England somewheres about? If so, then what the debate is snagging on is confusion caused by ethnocentrism.
naliaka on March 2, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Damn-
There are still some of you acting like idiots.
Once again. It was a parody of liberals. Watch closely.
Fox TV A List, Feb 6 2007
Bryan was wrong. You are wrong. Can you stop now? You are looking like dopes.
JackStraw on March 2, 2007 at 9:25 PM
It’s mostly used as shorthand for coward, gutless, old womanish, ultra-Conservative. (Now that’s irony for ya).
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Expectations are just that and are often not met in the real world. They are not fascistic demands.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Any thinking adult knows that expectations aren’t always met. Does that mean that one should never have any expectations?
And again you toss the Straw Man out there as if anyone here were talking about taking fascist measures against Coulter (or anyone else) for being offensive. Has anyone suggested that she be fined? Thrown in jail? No. We’re all just putting forth what we think about Coulter’s behavior and the type of behavior in general.
Don’t project your paranoia onto others.
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 9:30 PM
No, it means you don’t shove your expectations down other people’s throats and go around with skin as thick as rice paper an feign indignation at the drop of a hat and then try to destroy people with poison keyboards.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 9:33 PM
You know… at times like this, I have to wonder if Ann is a liberal plant used to discredit conservatives.
SIGH.
I mean why? That was worse then Glenn Beck’s lame joke-resulting-in-silence a few days ago.
Some people need to learn to quit while they’re ahead.
Jones Zemkophill on March 2, 2007 at 9:40 PM
JackStraw on March 2, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Okay, I give up. Fling all the pejoratives that you want, folks, as is your right. I hope, however, that the next time some Leftist like Marcotte flings hot, sticky pejoratives at Catholics (and other Christians like me) and then whines about “fascism” when it is mere criticism that is the response, most of you will take up that Leftist’s cross and bear it.
Pun intended.
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 9:41 PM
OK, so it’s all a parody of liberals. Big deal! Ann of all people should know that this word now has a meaning that is hate speech; after all, she’s using it based on a parody of its use which resulted in its reference target’s outing himself! Furthermore, Ann of all people should know that the media will conveniently forget all about Isaiah Washington’s reference when they gloat all over her words. After all, Anna Nicole Smith is about to be buried, and the media need a new action story.
With that context, it still counts as reckless hate speech from Ann. It doesn’t matter whether it was a botched joke or a scripted jab. It still makes her a terrible hypocrite given her writings about talking to liberals; she used the same tactic for which she derides them, and she did it to quite a target in front of quite an audience.
If she were to apologize (and not give a liberal’s apology apologizing for our being offended), I’d reconsider her work and writings. Until then, she’s lost her credibility with me.
flutejpl on March 2, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Not to worry. Ann’s gay neutral. She buys gay-bashing offsets.
petefrt on March 2, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Okay, Okay, after over a hundred posts, mostly About Nothing, let me be the first to Speak Truth to Ridiculousness
Edwards isn’t a faggot; he’s a pussy
That’s what most of you were thinking……
Janos Hunyadi on March 2, 2007 at 9:54 PM
A simple “I’m sorry, Ann was absolutely correct to parody liberals, and paricularly John Edwards who hired foul mouthed bigots as his outreach to the online community, and I totally misrepresented what she said to offset my conservative guilt and I will now defend her because it’s exactly what I say every damn day” would have been sufficient.
No pun intended.
You were wrong. So was hyper-posting jummy and every other conservative who decided to jump on Ann and misrepresent a joke as a bigoted statement.
I don’t expect liberal not to slam conservatives and take their words out of contect. But conservatives who slam other conservatives in a holier than thou attempt hurt what I want more than liberals ever will.
JackStraw on March 2, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Those words are synonyms in New England. They are used interchangeably.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 10:04 PM
And…..?
I’m not in old or New England, Dog. “Faggot” is a crude insult on homosexuals, while a “pussy” is a weak unreliable man unworthy of any respect
sounds like Edwards to me…..
Janos Hunyadi on March 2, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Sorry but you are dead wrong. Growing up in New England, “faggot” was favorite term in my Jr High. It was especially used for know-it-all twits.
That is a wild stretch. Somehow you you can lump together black Americans, lunch counters, back of the bus and offending Islamic terrorists?
You an Edward’s blogger?
Hening on March 2, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Nice to have the power to define words. It must make you quiver with excitement.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Ummm, Dog, didn’t you do the same? Doesn’t everyone have their own particular usage and intended meanings? Was anything I said or defined wrong in any way?
Janos Hunyadi on March 2, 2007 at 10:16 PM
So if next week liberals are calling Republicans homophobes as a result of this, how will that be different than last week?
Maxx on March 2, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Amer.Eng. slang (shortened form fag is from 1921), probably from earlier contemptuous term for “woman” (1591), especially an old and unpleasant one
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 10:16 PM
I’m buying the popcorn, Maxx, because you’ve nailed it!
Last time Ann drew fire was for some outrageous comment about the Jersey Girls. But remember what happened next? Ann Coulter, ALMOST SINGLE-HANDEDLY, drew the issue into the public spotlight and seriously interrupted the left’s endless parade of “human shields”?
Ann knows what’s she’s doing. She’s out to beat the left at their own game, and she’s willing to take the heat to get the job done.
An army needs all kinds of soldiers to win a war. My army has a place for Ann Coulter.
petefrt on March 2, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Context is everything. What a person means is important when trying to figure out if you are going to feign indignation.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Wow, what a bunch of prudes. I think the joke was funny and Robert Sampson seems to be one practicing common sense on this thread.
Oooo… Ann said fagot. Big freaking deal. Live with it.
wytammic on March 2, 2007 at 10:23 PM
A simple “I’m sorry, Ann was absolutely correct to parody liberals, and paricularly John Edwards who hired foul mouthed bigots as his outreach to the online community, and I totally misrepresented what she said to offset my conservative guilt and I will now defend her because it’s exactly what I say every damn day” would have been sufficient.
JackStraw on March 2, 2007 at 9:59 PM
But I’m not sorry since I didn’t misrepresent what Coulter said (she did use the f-word, in whatever context; white ni**ers, anyone?), nor do I have conservative guilt (whatever that is). Therefore your misrepresentation of what I said would not have been sufficient.
But conservatives who slam other conservatives in a holier than thou attempt hurt what I want more than liberals ever will.
Holier-than-thou, eh? I suppose a pejorative flung at you right now merely to prove I’m don’t think that I’m holier than thou would be hypocritical in such a discussion, no? :-)
Seriously, do you think that conservatives are always correct no matter what they do? I’m not attempting to put words in your mouth; I’m asking a question in good-faith because I’m having trouble understand *how* criticizing other conservatives hurts what you want. (Perhaps actually *stating* what you want would help the understanding.)
If the answer is ‘no,’ then under what circumstances–if any–should other conservatives criticize their own?
(BTW, was AC wrong when she hit GWB below the belt for nominating Harriet Miers?)
I’m just trying to understand the thinking here.
You’re wrong.
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 10:24 PM
I’m don’t think
I don’t think
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 10:25 PM
one
1591 !!! Even I’m not that old. “fag” in Britain is a cigarette, and in Shake-Spear’s time “faggot” is something else entirely.
My statement on Edwards’ pussy-ness stands…..
Janos Hunyadi on March 2, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Oops. Ignore this, Jack Straw: “You’re wrong.” I almost succumbed to the tu quoque (grade) school of response.
baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Look it up. That’s the etymology of the word and is still in common use today. As was said, a weak man (an old woman), a coward, a gutless wonder, etc. Now, you can try to redefine it all you want but that’s just PC crap. Yes, fag also means cigarette and was in common use here during my mother’s generation and it also meant a pussy. See, in English, words often have more than one meaning which is why context is important.
TheBigOldDog on March 2, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Or, maybe she was just being an asinine bomb-thrower.
The “You people just can’t comprehend [INSERT NAME HERE]’s nuance” routine is right up there with the “Guess I hit a nerve” and **Crickets chirping** responses.
Same goes for calling people “prudes” because they think there’s a place for tact.
John from WuzzaDem on March 2, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Er, um, Ha hahahaha.
Seriously, John, you have to admit as a world class bomb thrower that’s kinda funny.
JackStraw on March 2, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Ann–you are so hot! Keep it up girl. Like you said you can’t deliver the truth with novacane.
auspatriotman on March 2, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Uh … Yes.
I just thought it was copyrighted so we couldn’t use it.
naliaka on March 2, 2007 at 11:18 PM
For the Love of God. I keep saying that Ann Coulter is a stupid bitch and she lives up to it again and again. As a conservative, I find her to be embarrassing and it frustrates me to see her treated as a regular, normal, thoughtful conservative. She is nothing more than a wart and the wart that is Ann Coulter needs to be either removed or ignored.
zerodamage on March 2, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Does that include “illegal aliens”?
PinkyBigglesworth on March 2, 2007 at 11:50 PM
What Fatal said on March 2, 2007 at 7:23 PM
I mean the left had a band/group called The Breeders for crying out loud.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 3, 2007 at 12:00 AM
There would have been zero debate about this had HA put up the photo of Edwards checking himself with his compact powder mirror, next that that photo that is up of Ann at the shooting range. :P
naliaka on March 3, 2007 at 12:14 AM
I agree the comments are offensive…but Ann is not stupid…I think they are meant to be…probably to get the attention she needs to get the other messages out…maybe in looking for something else to try to hang her with…some liberals might read what she writes and get a clue by accident…hum…
CCRWM on March 3, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Harsh; very harsh. If you said that to her face, Ann would bitch-slap you silly.
and she’s not a ‘wart’…….
Janos Hunyadi on March 3, 2007 at 12:31 AM
I know this is ‘way too far down the list to ever be read, but there is a point that needs to be made;
re:
And that is exactly our problem. We impose on ourselves, limitations, beyond which we will not go. Things like Duty, Honor, love of Country.
Meanwhile the left rejects the very idea of limits. They have an insane need to dominate, to win, and may very well be prepared to do anything to gain/retain the absolute power they must have. To them, honor is nothing, winning is everything.
We do have to retain our standards, and principles. Otherwise we become our own enemies.
Think progress also has this video of Ann Coulter’s remarks, and has posted a link on digg.com. Of course, it instantly went popular; right to the front page, top of the list, with over 300 comments, 1200 diggs.
rockhauler on March 3, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Well… if anyone knows “hate filled and bigoted” its Howard Dean. Isn’t this fun?
Maxx on March 3, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Lord Nazh, TheBigOldDog,
I am with you! All this over reaction of self-righteous, pompous, holier than thou wimps is very uuhh umm shall we say “off putting”? Thi is all so phony. I hope that doesn’t bruise their little homephobic brains.
Linda in California on March 3, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »