Audio: Laura Ingraham addresses L’Affaire Coulter

posted at 4:09 pm on March 5, 2007 by Bryan

In her second hour today, Laura Ingraham tackled Ann Coulter’s non-botched joke about John Edwards. Click to play.


(source: lauraingraham.com)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Nobody called anybody a faggot. Just like nobody’s calling you a tedious crank.

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 7:58 PM

14 on Thursday, with half of the other with the same.

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Zooooom! That one was lost on me Jim. Clear it up for me will ya?

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 7:58 PM

I LOVE Michelle Malkin but am tired of her and everyone else getting on their high horse about Ann Coulter. Trying to divine why this matter deserves so much attention has given me a headache and raised my blood pressure.
Michelle is thankful that she didn’t drag her kids to CPAC (talk about child abuse!) because she wouldn’t have wanted them to hear Ann’s language at a private conference covered by C-SPAN. (Actually, MM didn’t hear Ann’s speech either.) But who was it that used the word B*LLS on the highest rated cable news network’s top show during Family Time? Now I don’t spend time working these things over but what is the degree of separation between the two crudities? Maybe those of you so interested could kick that one around for awhile and get back to me.
Thanks so much.

thegreatbeast on March 5, 2007 at 7:59 PM

And it’s a shame on our party to think saying “faggot” in any context is justified.

There are other parties out there who share your point of view without question…

JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Once when camping, I was burned by a faggot from my campfire.
I suppose that means that you would banish me from the party? And I should join, what party?? Would you have me vote for Pat Buchanan? Whoever the American Nazi Party is running? Or would you just rather have me vote Democrat, because you don’t like that word ‘in any context?’?

Get a grip.

LegendHasIt on March 5, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Michelle Malkin posted the George Washington rules on personal conduct. Most of them were about being above the fray. The one who has studied them most is President Bush; hence, we have a Democratic Congress now.

januarius on March 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM

BWAAAAAAAHHH!

Problem with this argument is George Washington (who wrote the rules you disparage) forgot more about real warfare than you’re likely ever to understand. Bloody footprints in the snow at Valley Forge ring a bell? That’s a seriously dedicated warrior.

And yet, he still insists on decency. I’ll side with THAT guy, you side with Ann!

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 8:00 PM

You are chosing to defend her for a percieved problem she creates for you with those you want to sway

That would be deride her…..

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 8:01 PM

At Michelle’s signature site she made reference to Rule 110 copied by a very young George Washington from much older script. She used the actual words:

“Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”

A translation to modern English is:

“Don’t allow yourself to become jaded, cynical or calloused.”

Name calling in front of large audiences just not cool. I don’t know for sure, but I think Ronald Reagan, like George Washington, would have taken the high road, not the gutter.

Zorro on March 5, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Nobody called anybody a faggot. Just like nobody’s calling you a tedious crank.

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Well see, you missed her point again. You’d need to find a liberal ideal that I was embracing and then use a comment that would inflame me to exhibit that liberal ideal.

Nice try though.

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Why would that inflame you? I was pointing out that nobody was calling you that. You’re welcome.

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Who did she call a faggot?

Oh, please. Try to pay at least a little attention, wouldja?

Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 8:09 PM

?? Is this one of those things where gays can say the F word but not non-gays?? ‘Cause gays say fag all the time. ALL the time.
My gay hairdresser calls certain women “faghags”, meaning they Love to hang with gays.
This is much ado about very little.
Im so fagged out today!

lizzee on March 5, 2007 at 8:11 PM

@ LegendHasIt on March 5, 2007 at 8:00 PM…

Oh, puh-leese…

You know full well Ann didn’t mean a bundle of sticks.

As for the context, I mean either: A dig on gays, a dig on the probation of that actor, or a dig on Edwards, or anything of that matter.

But hey, no big deal, right? So lets just all stop being PC, and use whatever words we want. Who cares if anyone’s offended. That’s their problem, right?

Way to get votes… that will win elections!

JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 8:13 PM

I still like the RINO as recursive acronym idea. Richard Stallman’s been getting away with that crap for like decades now. Why can’t we?

spmat on March 5, 2007 at 8:13 PM

she shouldn’t represent the mainstream conservative movement.
aengus on March 5, 2007 at 7:50 PM

That’s critical assumption to address. Last time I checked, Ann represents herself. Who decided she represents the conservative movement? I don’t believe she has claimed that title, and it’s foolishness to let the Liberal Left, the opposition, inform the entire world who’s running the conservative show. That means the conservatives don’t know what they’re doing and are too easily panicked. Not good. People aren’t stupid. They can determine without any help, either way, how seriously to take someone like Ann. Just cause the Liberal Left professional screechers are in full howl doesn’t mean anyone else is listening to them. They spend much of their time fabricating “news stunts” that they then “report.” That’s why the major newspapers and networks are in their own “slow bleed” of readership and viewership.

naliaka on March 5, 2007 at 8:18 PM

csdeven,

Oh, here you are. Saw your last post on the monster thread and I’m workin’ on it.

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 8:20 PM

Calling people faggots, though? That’s your ticket in, baby!

Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 7:53PM

Hmmm…maybe that’s why my career’s going nowhere.

No more Mr. Nice Guy! I can’t wait to meet with my boss tomorrow.

John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 8:20 PM

John, go with c*cks*cker. You can’t lose with that. Push that envelope and succeed! Get in there and influence people!

Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Who decided she represents the conservative movement?

Everybody who’s acting like criticizing her is a knife in the back of the conservative movement?

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:24 PM

In the meantime . . .

I used to be where you are.

What moved you? Frustration that conservatives are “losing”?

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 8:24 PM

JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 8:13 PM

I wasn’t talking about Coulter’s usage:
I was talking about your hysterical overreaction when you said that anyone who used it “in any context” should go to another party.

Yeah, ‘way to get votes’ indeed.

LegendHasIt on March 5, 2007 at 8:26 PM

Why would that inflame you? I was pointing out that nobody was calling you that. You’re welcome.

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Who said I was inflamed?

The conservatives who are acting all PC were inflamed by Ann to expose themselves as PC. It was a brilliant move on her part.

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 8:28 PM

Who said you said you were inflamed?

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:31 PM

The conservatives who are acting all PC were inflamed by Ann to expose themselves as PC. It was a brilliant move on her part.

Sweet! Way to out those ideologically impure faggots RINO’s! Get thee and thy filthy votes away from our master race party!

Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 8:31 PM

What moved you? Frustration that conservatives are “losing”?

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Well, only in the sense that we are not making a lot of progress when we play nicey-nicey. Playing nice with liberals is like fishing with the bait you like and not the fish. You feel good, but you’re wasting your time.

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Maybe it would have come off better if she’d used “fudgepacker” or “friend of Judy”?
Either way, Fred Phelps sends his approval.

SouthernDem on March 5, 2007 at 8:34 PM

Must… try to justify use of ‘faggot’ word… to fight… ‘PC’-ness… gnnngh!

Reaps on March 5, 2007 at 8:34 PM

Who said you said you were inflamed?

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:31 PM

That’s what I asked you. Do you know?

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Well, only in the sense that we are not making a lot of progress when we play nicey-nicey. Playing nice with liberals is like fishing with the bait you like and not the fish. You feel good, but you’re wasting your time.

Call them faggots! That always works!

Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Who said I knew you know I didn’t say you’re inflamed?

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:38 PM

I don’t know who said you knew that I knew who thought I was inflamed. Do you?

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM

IMO, this has nothing to do with conservatives going PC or RINO; rather with being fed-up with taking flak and doing damage control for having this serial verbal bomb-thrower as one of the highest profile conservatives among us.

laelaps on March 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM

Does anybody? Who said anybody knew?

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:41 PM

Either way, Fred Phelps sends his approval.

Hey now, Fred Phelps is a Democrat and was a Gore delegate in 1988. Pointing that out never gets old for some reason.

Bryan on March 5, 2007 at 8:41 PM

Ritz, the monster thread is on the archives page. Are you going to post there or here? Please make it here. The quality of debating opponants has degraded significantly. I’ll check back in a while.

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 8:42 PM

Hurry!

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:44 PM

haha Just caught Michelle on O’Reilly…

“I’m not a person you want to pick a fight with”

Gold…

JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Get ready for Coulter post #5 and #6 or will it be combined into 1.

MM just on the Factor. Ann on H&C tonight…

I wonder if she’ll call the Crypt Keeper a… stay tuned…

TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2007 at 8:49 PM

I wonder if she’ll call the Crypt Keeper a…

…mirror?

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:50 PM

No, Liberal! Silly boy!

TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2007 at 8:54 PM

In case some of you people do not know there is hate crimes legislation in Congress right now that will make what Ann Said at CPAC a crime.

“The newest threat is being prepared by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, whose work is being called “The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007″

“Marcavage told WND that plan would invert American justice, and instead of requiring evidence it would leave it to someone who claims to be offended to determine whether a “crime” has been committed.”

Think about it, Is this the America you want to live in?

ScottyDog on March 5, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Semantic totalitarianism.priceless

Schoolyard taunt to denote a wuss. Gee, where have I heard that before?

TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2007 at 9:04 PM

csdeven,

Let’s start here:

Can you see how Anns remark was not an insult but an attack on PC?

I’m perfectly willing to accept that an attack on PC was her intent. Maybe(for the sake of argument)she’d been working on this joke for a while and it was just happenstance that John Edwards was the name she chose to set up the punch line. Regardless, you can’t credibly assert she didn’t use ‘faggot’ as a personal slur in her attempt to make the point. Hold this thought . . .

My point about Ann was that the word faggot is immoral. But she did not use it in an immoral way.

Other immoral words ares nigger, spic, kike, wop, blanket ass, mick, heb, etc.

What you’ve actually demonstrated in the above quote is that it’s the way you use the word that is moral or immoral. If you quote someone who used the word, or reference the word in a list for clarity as you did, this is not immoral. But as soon as you pick that word up and hurl it at someone as a slur – whether your intent was to injure them personally or just to illustrate some larger point – that is an immoral use.

To sum up, if she indisputably used the word as a slur, and a slur is an immoral use, then she attempted to make a point in an immoral way. No?

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 9:04 PM

I am waiting for this conversation to end with people saying “I know you are but what am I?”….

EnochCain on March 5, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Good news! Rehab must have worked for Isaiah Washington. He’s been nominated for an NAACP Image Award.

JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 9:14 PM

I am waiting for this conversation to end with people saying “I know you are but what am I?”….

EnochCain on March 5, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Exactly what I was thinking…

ugh…

JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Who said you said you were inflamed?

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 8:31 PM

I think you said he said he was inflamed. No, wait that was someone else. I mean, you know, who said he said he was inflamed, not said he was inflamed. Or maybe he is inflamed. Sorry, I’m just really tired – this water is heavy.

John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 9:19 PM

The RINOs must drink!

Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Just a thought.

Would O.J. be a free man today if Mark Furman would have admitted he used the word nigger instead of lying?

Wade on March 5, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Is Sean Hannity, the guy pictured at the top of this blog, a RINO? Cause he just came out with a strong defense of Coulter.

He seemed to get that it was a joke by a pundit/satirist. Even Pat Caddell got it. Only Comes was shocked and aghast.

Funny that.

JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM

JackStaw,

Is Sean Hannity, the guy pictured at the top of this blog, a RINO? Cause he just came out with a strong defense of Coulter.

Not at all. But he is a strong conservative who’s in error on this point.

Not impossible that.

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 9:44 PM

Dear CPAC, You all liked her fine when she was useful to you; now you hang a scarlet F on her. You say she’s a media slut, a connviing p.o.s.; how convenient that you suddenly knew this all along. You make me ashamed to be a conservative, not Anne. You slick expedient cowards.

We used to have our loyalties; blood was thicker than water. We used to have our ancient rules of thumb; every dog was entitled to one bite and all that. Now we’ve become sour inquisitorial pedants just like the enemy.

Anne Coulter is a two-fisted fighter and doesn’t need my help. But she’s family, and she’s in a jam, and that’s enough for me.

dhimwit on March 5, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Why is it that everyone is hyperventilating over the fact that Ann Coulter called John Edwards a “f@ggot” rather than wondering why she took the time in her speech to point out what everybody already knew? That’s the real mystery.

Whether Edwards is a homosexual or not is beside the point. In the current American colloquial, “f@ggot” is used to refer to anyone that is an unpleasant jerk (ask any normal male from age 10 to 25), and a wussified, pansy, girlie-man dork who wants to ruin people’s lives with collectivist schemes certainly seems to fit that definition.

What is offensive isn’t that Ann Coulter implied that John Edwards is a “f@ggot.” What is offensive is that John Edwards is one.

Doghouse on March 5, 2007 at 10:02 PM

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Hey, you’re right. After watching her explain it on H&C, she was using the word “faggot” to mean edwards was a wuss. She described it as a schoolyard insult.

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 10:09 PM

Whahoooo! John from Wuzzadem is here!! Now we have Allah and John, this is going to be fun!!!

Troy Rasmussen on March 5, 2007 at 10:19 PM

Film
Actors
Guild

It’s like an episode of South Part, only in print blog

Kini on March 5, 2007 at 10:24 PM

Conservatism be dammed. My male heterosexual condition prevents any objection to anything Ann has ever said.

Buck Turgidson on March 5, 2007 at 10:24 PM

Is Sean Hannity, the guy pictured at the top of this blog, a RINO? Cause he just came out with a strong defense of Coulter.

JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM

That is exactly how every conservative should have handled it. Instead we had semi-pseudo conservatives that get stuck on a word. They want to win the battle but lose the war.

Brilliant!

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Hey, you’re right. After watching her explain it on H&C, she was using the word “faggot” to mean edwards was a wuss. She described it as a schoolyard insult.

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 10:09 PM

I’m stunned and disoriented. Sheepishly swinging an argument around with no one in the vicinity to slap it against. What do I do now? (joking)

Didn’t see H&C. Details please – or has this whole 500 post thing just worn you out?

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 10:48 PM

In case some of you people do not know there is hate crimes legislation in Congress right now that will make what Ann Said at CPAC a crime.

“The newest threat is being prepared by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, whose work is being called “The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007″

“Marcavage told WND that plan would invert American justice, and instead of requiring evidence it would leave it to someone who claims to be offended to determine whether a “crime” has been committed.”

Think about it, Is this the America you want to live in?

ScottyDog on March 5, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Wow ScottyDog, I didn’t know about this article your link points to. Its only two days old…. from 3 March 2007. I would not be surprised if Ann Coulter was aware of this legislation quietly moving through Congress and was making a kind of preemptive strike against it. Poking it in the eye for lack of a better expression.

Ann is the best culture warrior Republicans’ have and she’s fearless. Her faggot remark was a direct attack not so much on Edwards as on Political Correctness, which has already done great violence to our First Amendment Rights. Those that condemn Coulter either don’t understand that, or they have decided it is just easier to condemn Coulter than to make a stand in support of the First Amendment.

If this legislation is passed it will be the beginning of the end of free speech in America. I would like to think that even if it passed and was signed into law, that the Supreme Court would strike it down, but I wouldn’t want to count on that.

Ann took a brave swipe at political correctness with her remark, its really a shame that many on the right accuse her of only doing for attention. In Germany I understand it is already a hate crime to express any Biblical view that homosexuality is a sin. I expect that is the way we are going also. Soon there will be “Correct Think” and “Wrong Think” and I don’t believe Republican views are going to be in the “Correct Think” category. Well I hope Annie saves me a seat at the re-education camp rehab center, because I plan to speak against it until they come to take me away. I’ll see you there ScottyDog!!

Maxx on March 5, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Didn’t see H&C. Details please – or has this whole 500 post thing just worn you out?

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 10:48 PM

I only caught a few minutes of it. She said the comment was obviously not a swipe at his sexuality because he is married with two kids. (I did get that right :-)) Pat Caddell was on and he got it also. The biggest thing was that Hannity handled it the way I thought we all should have handled it. I dvr everything and watch it in the am. But yeah, I’m a little worn too.

I’m staying away from the MM thread until I see Bill O in the am. But I’m having fun over at the Delay thread. There have been a few opportunities to segue an Ann comment or two. Bwwwwaaahahahaaaaa

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 11:09 PM

alrighty then. . .

Ritz out.

The Ritz on March 5, 2007 at 11:26 PM

I question the whining.

Buck Turgidson on March 5, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Is Sean Hannity, the guy pictured at the top of this blog, a RINO? Cause he just came out with a strong defense of Coulter.

Dude, you’re not paying attention:

People who ‘get’ Coulter, (you know, those who actually use their brains), who aren’t kowtowing to the MSM and who ‘really’ support the troops (by not voicing any criticism of Ann Coulter) are the REAL conservatives.

The RINOs are the gutless PC-freak libtard-loving pearl clutchers who are laying waste to everything Ronald Reagan held dear by criticizing Ann.

He seemed to get that it was a joke by a pundit/satirist.

The hell you say! Sean Hannity is defending Ann Coulter?? Wow, it’s like some kind of bizarro world.

The next thing you know cats will be barking and dogs meowing.

John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 11:34 PM

This whole thing is now starting to sound like two people jealous of Ann’s success and status in the Party which was only enhanced because the only person with (that word that Michelle was bleeped for) throws a mean punch effectively

Poor Poor little Democrats, I’m weeping for them

Hey lets all argue this while we listen to President Hillarys 2009 Swearing in speech.

EricPWJohnson on March 6, 2007 at 12:12 AM

How ’bout some muzak to end this thread? This seems appropriate, although it’s the wrong Johnny.

forged rite on March 6, 2007 at 2:47 AM

That is exactly how every conservative should have handled it. Instead we had semi-pseudo conservatives that get stuck on a word.

But nobody called anyone a RINO! I swear!

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 4:57 AM

But nobody called anyone a RINO! I swear!

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 4:57 AM

You can’t because I’m not.

Did you bother looking up pseudo?

Reference 2. It isn’t an insult, it a discription of a persons placement on a path approaching a goal. Because I know most people view “pseudo” as being fake or pretend, I added “semi”.

Did another conservative just get hung up on a word and ignore the message?

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 8:32 AM

csdeven,

Because I know most people view “pseudo” as being fake or pretend, I added “semi”.

Right, psuedo-conservative = RINO. And it was you protesting that no one has called anyone a RINO, wasn’t it?

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 8:49 AM

IT IS ABOUT THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES SHE DOES CONSERVATIIVES NO FAVORS.

WE ARE NOT RINOS.

LET HER SAY THAT STOINK ON HER OWN TIME, NOT CPAC’S.

IF YOU READ “THE LETTER”, NOWHERE NOWHERE NOWHERE DOES IT DEMAND THAT SHE APOLOGIZE.

JEEEZ. READ CRITICALLY OR KEEP YOUR PIEHOLE SHUT!!

seejanemom on March 6, 2007 at 9:43 AM

That is true, but to attack her for using a word in a context in a way she did not use it, is a serious breech in conservative values. That is carrying the pc water for the libs.

csdeven is absolutely right: the letter is both a serious breach of conservative values and carrying water for the Left. It resembles the massive, public, politically correct mea culpa so beloved by the communists. Cultural marxism is taking over the debate in American politics by attrition. In five years, there will be no discernable difference, intellectually, between the Right and the Left.

seejanemom: Don’t shriek in public. It’s unbecoming.

ahem on March 6, 2007 at 10:34 AM

My maiden name is the same as the leader of the pick-pockets in “Oliver Twist”.
Since I was a major social outcast(except for my musical ability)in school I was called “faggot” more times than I can count. Michelle’s a day older than I am to give you a timeline.
I got called a lot of nasty names.
So what.
Life goes on.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 6, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Esthier: I think John ‘Silky Pony’ is a faggot…so sue me.

DoctorDentons on March 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 8:49 AM

If I meant RINO, I would have said RINO. I’m beginning to see that you are having diffuculty with this concept.

What I said was to be construed as a conservative that just isn’t as committed, which is a long way from being a republican in name only.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Michelle,

My kids heard you say BALLS on O’Reilly, I was not amused! Some role model?

CharlestonCritic on March 6, 2007 at 2:21 PM

CharlestonCritic, if that’s the game you wish to play, let one without sin cast the first stone. Surely you and your kids have dropped some language bombs at some point. I know I have. As far as verbal bombs go, “balls” is hardly any more vulgar than calling said anatomy by their medical name, testes. As far as vulgarity goes, it’s about as tame as it gets. Furthermore, IT GOT BLEEPED ANYWAY!!! Your kids are safe unless you told them what Michelle said. CharlestonCritic, your argument is definitely flawed and likely hypocritical; did you think about these things?

As far as Michelle’s bleep goes, would I want my ten year old saying it? No. Would I care if my twenty year old said it? Nah. Do I think any less of her for saying it? Nah. Have I said it? Absolutely, to my shame. Do I have any? Read on and be the judge of that; I hope I don’t get banned.

The whole point of all the talk regarding Ann’s bomb is that THIS particular word is at an entirely different level of vulgarity. To demonstrate my point, I could drop the 4-letter f-bomb out of frustration, say, for instance, “F—, it’s cold today!” Nobody gets hurt. If you live with me in NJ, you’d surely agree, in fact. If I say “F— YOU!” and point a finger, though, somebody’s getting hurt. Being a weakling myself, I’d probably be the one getting hurt, eating my words as a knuckle sandwich. If I say “F— (insert entire group of people here) at a venue at which some of them surely will hear about it,” I risk inciting a riot. With some vulgarities, context is everything.

The whole point people like me have been trying to make is that the 6-letter f-bomb’s offensive nature is so woven into its modern definition that offending an entire group with its usage is unavoidable no matter what. FORGET CONTEXT. Ann might as well have said, and I make it absolutely clear that this paraphrase is utterly condemnable if one actually meant it in the slightest way, “I’d criticize Obama, but, the moment you say n—–, you have to go to rehab.” On the level of offensiveness, that is no different than what Ann actually said. She still could have meant the same joke had she said those exact words, but would it matter? NO!

Some words are offensive only to the ears: balls. Some words can be offensive to just the ears or to souls as well given the context: f—. Other words are offensive to ears and to souls all the time: f—–, n—–, etc. Ann crossed that line by using such a loaded word at such a loaded venue, and she risked taking an entire conference off topic and has lined a slip and fall lawyer’s pockets in the process. That’s why some of us are screaming as we are. Why can’t people understand this? /rant

flutejpl on March 6, 2007 at 3:48 PM

That’s why some of us are screaming as we are. Why can’t people understand this? /rant

flutejpl on March 6, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Because your premise is wrong. Your have demonstrated that the public schools have been successful in indoctrination of PC hate speech being off limits.

Next stop, criminal prosecution for words that are offensive, don’t not laugh a pastor in Canada got 30 days and $3000 dollar fine for just quoting the bible in a newspaper.

ScottyDog on March 6, 2007 at 5:04 PM

csdeven,

If I meant RINO, I would have said RINO. I’m beginning to see that you are having diffuculty with this concept.

What I said was to be construed as a conservative that just isn’t as committed, which is a long way from being a republican in name only.

I get it now. A semi-fake, pretend conservative can also be a totally bitchin’ Republican. And anyone who objects to the use of the word “faggot” on the stage as CPAC just isn’t as committed a conservative, but may also be a full fledged Republican. Thanks for the clarification.

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 5:56 PM

>A semi-fake, pretend conservative can also be a totally bitchin’ Republican

There are millions of them out there voting for socialist policies and non-conservative politicians. “Republican” hasn’t been synonymous with “conservative” for a long, long time. There are a lot of conservative Republicans, but there are also a lot of non-conservative Republicans. Just being less of a wacked out leftist than a lot of Demokrats doesn’t make you a conservative. PC and ultra-PC are both bad, just as big government and huge government are both bad.

And being a thin-skinned wuss is both bad and disgusting. Hey, a thin-skinned wuss is a perfect example of someone worthy of the label “f@ggot!”

Doghouse on March 6, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Hey, a thin-skinned wuss is a perfect example of someone worthy of the label “f@ggot!”

So…..you’re saying Michelle and Bryan are faggots?

Interesting.

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 9:26 PM

>So…..you’re saying Michelle and Bryan are faggots?

Are you saying that Michelle and Bryan are thin-skinned wusses?

Doghouse on March 6, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Oh, I forgot:

“Interesting.”

Doghouse on March 6, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Nothing is more pathetic than when conservatives engage in superficial Poltically Correct Sanctimonious High Horsedness.

VinceP1974 on March 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Why can’t we just call a spade a spade?

Oops.

Rehab.

Doghouse on March 6, 2007 at 10:33 PM

Are you saying that Michelle and Bryan are thin-skinned wusses?

Are you saying that objecting to Coulter’s remark makes you a thin skinned wuss? If you’re not saying that, what are you trying to say?

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Because your premise is wrong. Your have demonstrated that the public schools have been successful in indoctrination of PC hate speech being off limits.

Next stop, criminal prosecution for words that are offensive, don’t not laugh a pastor in Canada got 30 days and $3000 dollar fine for just quoting the bible in a newspaper.

ScottyDog on March 6, 2007 at 5:04 PM

If my premise is wrong, yours is just as wrong. I didn’t get my premise in public school. For one, I went to a private school. Less nitpicky and more meaningfully, I got it in Sunday school… in a rather evangelical church in the heart of the Bible belt.

Beyond the basis of scripture, your argument is flawed in that religious speech and hate speech are two totally different subjects, unless the Canadian pastor was using the Bible to harass a bunch of people by telling them that they were all hellbound. Even then, is the motive hate?

I get my indignation from, among other places, Matthew 5:22. Christ’s words exemplify what I tried to say in my earlier rant. Christ says “fool” instead of the word in question, but I somehow doubt that Christ would split that hair. Then, there’s Romans 14 and/or 1 Corinthians 8. Ann claims to be a Christian; in that context, EVEN IF it is okay for some who call themselves Christians to use hate speech, by this premise, she should not use it around those who would be offended.

Furthermore, check 1 Corinthians 6:12. Maybe it’s legal for us to use hate speech… but what’s the point? Finally, there are several points that could be made from the book of James about the tongue being the downfall of those who claim to believe.

I realize I have made the leap of understanding in assuming that, ScottyDog, you are a Christian. I assume that by your citing the instance of the Canadian pastor’s jailing. If you are a Christian, please review your thoughts in light of these passages. For those who do not profess a faith that binds them to a moral standard, I can see why Ann’s words are less of an issue.

I’m done with this topic… I’m sick of it. Onto Scooter Libby’s demise, speaking of intrusions on free speech!

flutejpl on March 6, 2007 at 10:57 PM

>Are you saying that objecting to Coulter’s remark makes you a thin skinned wuss? If you’re not saying that, what are you trying to say?

I’m saying that hyperventilating over it makes you a thin-skinned wuss. Or a baby. Probably both. There’s a lot of whining, sobbing, and hand-wringing going on here. That’s wuss territory. And baby territory.

Making a big deal about Ann’s comment at all is pretty much wuss territory.

At the very least, it’s going emo about something that doesn’t matter.

Unless you’re a thin-skinned wuss.

Somebody might get their feelings hurt.

Waaaah!

Doghouse on March 6, 2007 at 11:03 PM

I love when people like flutejpl attempt to use people’s virtues against them as a weapon.

VinceP1974 on March 6, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 5:56 PM

You don’t get anything Pablo. You’ve either got you head in the sand or you are being purposely obtuse. You are treating my use of a word in the way you want to understand it so it will seem contradictive.

I know what I meant, I used the words. You refuse to allow me to define my own speech so you can force me into your desired definition. Like it or not, that is pushing the PC agenda, and you have become the poster child for the PC conservative.

When you are ready to apologize, I’ll engage you again.

csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 9:15 AM

You are treating my use of a word in the way you want to understand it so it will seem contradictive.

Yeah, it’s awful of me to apply the actual definitions of words to your use of them, exposing the contradictory, inconsistent nature of your statements. It’s my fault that you’re talking in circles, obviously.

When you are ready to apologize, I’ll engage you again.

So you won’t talk to me ever again? Sweet!

Pablo on March 7, 2007 at 10:11 AM

Nothing is more pathetic than when conservatives engage in superficial Poltically Correct Sanctimonious High Horsedness.

VinceP1974 on March 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Pablo’s their poster boy and spokesman.

csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2