Ann Coulter's F Bomb

[Gemini Cricket]

Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.Video is here (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/)

No surprise, of course, that she's spouting this kind of garbage, but I can't seem to find this story posted with the AP, Reuters or CNN.com. I don't watch TV, so maybe they talked about it there? Is it that they don't think she's newsworthy or are they avoiding the whole controversy so as not to attach the word to Edwards? I don't know.

What's more fascinating to me is that she was cheered for her remarks by some in the GOP audience. Classy.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I don't have anything to say on the subject. Not only am I not a fan of the word, I don't understand why she used it in this context.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. I don't understand this woman. I hope it's a character. I hope she doesn't really mean the awful things she says and is just saying them for attention.

[innerSpaceman]

I love the word, and I used it to describe George Bush all the time. It's a perfectly acceptable political term, as far as I'm concerned.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I don't believe in hell, so I can only hope karma rips her throat out at some point, character or no character.

[Tref]

Coulter should be strung up on a lamp-post like Musolini and flogged. Or, at best, just ignored. Either way, this much I know -- the Far Right loves a potty mouth.

[Gn2Dlnd]

I love the word, and I used it to describe George Bush all the time. It's a perfectly acceptable political term, as far as I'm concerned.

Really? You call GW a faggot? Fvcker, I understand. Faggot? Why not k*ke or n*gger?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

According to Mediamatters, she has also used this term to describe Gore in the past, along with calling both Clintons gay.

[blueerica]

You'd think she was a twelve year old gamer.

John Edwards is teh gay. :rolleyes:

She should get pwned. For real.

[Stan4dSteph]

You'd think she was a twelve year old gamer.

John Edwards is teh gay. :rolleyes:

She should get pwned. For real.ZOMG! LOLZ! SRSLY!

[wendybeth]

I actually read this on Faux News, and the article was faintly disapproving in tone. The cynic in me chalked that up to Republican tip-toeing about in this uncertain political clime.

[JWBear]

AC is a bitch troll from hell!

[Gemini Cricket]

WASHINGTON, March 3 — 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 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/ann_coulter/index.html?inline=nyt-per), an author who regularly speaks at conservative events, were sharply denounced by the candidates, Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Arizona, Rudolph W. Giuliani (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/rudolph_w_giuliani/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York and Mitt Romney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/mitt_romney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Massachusetts. Their statements came after Democrats, gay rights groups and bloggers raised a storm of protest over the remarks.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/politics/04coulter.html?_r=5&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print)

Well, that's something I guess...

Weird how sometimes it seems like we never left the playground, eh? Name-calling and all that...
Meh Bleh Blah Bah!

[Gn2Dlnd]

Someone needs to kick her in the balls.

[Gemini Cricket]

The Coulter story finally has been covered on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html). (They used the term 'f-bomb' too.)

[wendybeth]

She is really one freaky looking ....chick?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/storyvert.coulter.ed.gi.jpg

[Strangler Lewis]

I love the word, and I used it to describe George Bush all the time. It's a perfectly acceptable political term, as far as I'm concerned.

I dont' know if this has made news elsewhere, but somewhere here in Sonoma County, a Mormon junior high girl was disciplined at school for saying "God, that's so gay" about something. Rather than simply challenge the wisdom of this action, her parents have filed a religious discrimination lawsuit. The trial has concluded, and the judge will issue a decision soon. In the political context, I guess Coulter would describe Edwards's desire to withdraw the troops as "totally gay." His comeback, I suppose, would be "you f***ing dyke."

Apparently the kids today also say "Don't be so Jewish" when someone doesn't want to spend their money. In the political context, I guess we could criticize government spending by saying that if Congress only acted like a bunch of Jews--maybe even Jews on the sabbath--the country would be in better shape.

[Tramspotter]

So... It's Conservatives who coarsened the culture... Now it all makes sense...

Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh backed by an army of foul mouthed church going racist grannies.

They must be stopped at all costs rounded up and re-educated imidiately! To think that they can dare play fast and loose with racial or homosexualy loaded language and imagery that would harm community relations.

Who the hell do they think they are? They have no street cred only disenfranchised hard core rappers can do do that while promoting understanding and harmony.

We need to outlaw bridge clubs and church pankake breakfasts they are just as insidius and hatefull as the bier halls of Bavaria in the late 1920's.

[Gn2Dlnd]

So succinct.

So not the topic.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So succinct.

So not the topic.
Sure it is. It's the old, "Everyone else is doing it" defense.

[wendybeth]

Not only is it the 'everyone else is doing it' defense, it actually makes the perpetrator a victim. Hate speech is wrong, and anyone who indulges in it has to suffer the consequences. Ann Coulter has been pretty out there for a long while now, and with the backlash against the Republicans I seriously doubt they are going to let her ramble on as their representitive political pundit.

[Strangler Lewis]

So... It's Conservatives who coarsened the culture... Now it all makes sense...


We need to outlaw bridge clubs and church pankake breakfasts they are just as insidius and hatefull as the bier halls of Bavaria in the late 1920's.

Long bleached blonde hair and the little black dress are now de rigeur among middle American church ladies.

But seriously, at church clubs and knitting bees, when the "A faggot says what" smack dies down, the talk among the ladies invariably turns to how bad they feel about the effect of this critical publicity on Ann Coulter's husband and children.

What? She doesn't have any?

Well, isn't that special?

[Tramspotter]

Not only is it the 'everyone else is doing it' defense, it actually makes the perpetrator a victim. Hate speech is wrong, and anyone who indulges in it has to suffer the consequences. Ann Coulter has been pretty out there for a long while now, and with the backlash against the Republicans I seriously doubt they are going to let her ramble on as their representitive political pundit.

Hate speach is wrong MMMMMkkkayyy.

So now she is also a perpetrator eh? Should we inform the speach police shave her head and make her do the perp walk or is just making fun of the way she looks and everyone putting in thier 2cents about what a bitch she is enough?

And not to discount GD's keen analysis of my point but just curious as counter-culture warriors do you ever think damn that just went over the line?

Now please excuse me I have to put on my "How dare I wear this F*cking shirt in front of your F*cking children" Tee shirt and walk around downtown disney as I sing the I'm just a Jr high Prom dumpster baby song. :evil:

[BarTopDancer]

Apparently the kids today also say "Don't be so Jewish" when someone doesn't want to spend their money. In the political context, I guess we could criticize government spending by saying that if Congress only acted like a bunch of Jews--maybe even Jews on the sabbath--the country would be in better shape.

They said this when I was in school. It's nothing new.

[Strangler Lewis]

They said this when I was in school. It's nothing new.

What a relief.

[JWBear]

Hate speach is wrong MMMMMkkkayyy.

So now she is also a perpetrator eh? Should we inform the speach police shave her head and make her do the perp walk or is just making fun of the way she looks and everyone putting in thier 2cents about what a bitch she is enough?

And not to discount GD's keen analysis of my point but just curious as counter-culture warriors do you ever think damn that just went over the line?

Now please excuse me I have to put on my "How dare I wear this F*cking shirt in front of your F*cking children" Tee shirt and walk around downtown disney as I sing the I'm just a Jr high Prom dumpster baby song. :evil:

So, are you telling us that you think it's ok to use hate speach? Does that mean that if someone were to use the "n" word to describe Bush, it would be ok with you? (Or is it only ok in Coulter's case because the word used was a pejorative commonly used against gays?)

[Alex]

Depends on what it means to be "ok" with hate speech. I don't think she should be criminally prevented from saying whatever she wants (nor should you be similarly be prevented from calling Bush whatever you want).

Of course, to be able to say whatever you want free of legal consequences is vastly different from being free to say whatever you want free of social consequences. And her juvenile inclination to call those she doesn't like gay (as was suggested earlier it does feel like she is a regular on MMORPGs) is surely deserving of ostracization.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What Alex said. Just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you shouldn't be rightly called an insensitive, small-minded jerk if you choose to exercise that right.

[JWBear]

I agree completely. But, it sounds to me that TS doesn't think there should even be social consequences to what she said.

[wendybeth]

TS, you go on and where whatever offensive shirt you feel like, but accept the consequences if there are negative repercussions.

Visible mojo for Alex.

[Tramspotter]

I agree completely. But, it sounds to me that TS doesn't think there should even be social consequences to what she said.

You agree completely that there should be no legal ban eh? Yet you use the term "hate speach" and I wonder have no problems with existing "hate laws" and creating additional laws which add "extra" penaltys for anyone who it can be proven has a proven previous dislike for a paticular group yes?

Regardless of legal, how far would you guys wish push the social backlash against someone like Colter? Publicaly let known your own distaste for her use of that language? A lifting of the usual social contract by making ad hominem attacks beyond what you would of other public figures? Write in to demand she be taken off the air depriving her of livelyhood? Protests that would make her fear for her safty? Just wondering

It also sounds to me JBW that making your own comments and agreeing with others who denounce her is not enough for you. Do you wish to bring the same social presure to bear on those who aren't as offended as you are by her comments or worse would dismiss them? What is your minumum level of indignation just so I know, not that I would chose to display it for your benifit. You seem awful eger to cast some sort of shadow on me personaly. I find that sort of mindset as distastefull and well poisoning as any particular slur or epithet I ever heard used for real real and not for play play.

[mousepod]

I don't want to see her get in any legal trouble for misusing her freedom of speech. I also don't see the use in me "piling on" in this argument, especially when I don't exactly understand what the thesis of the pro-Coulter argument exactly is. I just know that Ann Coulter's an irresponsible ****ing ****, whose points are rendered moot because of the fact that she presents herself as a pompous ****.

[JWBear]

You agree completely that there should be no legal ban eh? Yet you use the term "hate speach" and I wonder have no problems with existing "hate laws" and creating additional laws which add "extra" penaltys for anyone who it can be proven has a proven previous dislike for a paticular group yes?

I have no problems (and fully support) hate speech laws. They are intended to increase to punishment for violent crimes that are the result of prejudice, bigotry, and hate. These laws do not apply in Ms Coulters case – she did not commit an act of physical violence.

Regardless of legal, how far would you guys wish push the social backlash against someone like Colter? Publicaly let known your own distaste for her use of that language?
Yes.

A lifting of the usual social contract by making ad hominem attacks beyond what you would of other public figures?
Ad hominem? Hardly. To reply to a nasty and inappropriate remark by condemning said remark is not an ad hominem attack.

And yes, I would react the same way if any other public figure made a remark of that type.

Write in to demand she be taken off the air depriving her of livelyhood?
Yes.

Protests that would make her fear for her safty?
No.

Just wondering

It also sounds to me JBW that making your own comments and agreeing with others who denounce her is not enough for you. Do you wish to bring the same social presure to bear on those who aren't as offended as you are by her comments or worse would dismiss them? What is your minumum level of indignation just so I know, not that I would chose to display it for your benifit. You seem awful eger to cast some sort of shadow on me personaly. I find that sort of mindset as distastefull and well poisoning as any particular slur or epithet I ever heard used for real real and not for play play.
I’m not trying to cast a shadow on you – just trying to interpret your post as best I can. You seem to be (to me, at least) defending her actions; as if you agreed with her and believe there was nothing wrong with what she said. If this is not what you meant, I apologize.

[Gemini Cricket]

At least three major companies want their ads pulled from Ann Coulter's Web site, following customer complaints about the right-wing commentator referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot." Verizon, Sallie Mae and Georgia-based NetBank each said they didn't know their ads were on AnnCoulter.com until they received the complaints.
A diarist at the liberal blog DailyKos.com posted contact information for dozens of companies with ads on Coulter's site after the commentator made her remarks about Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Friday.Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/05/coulter.ads/index.html)
I've always loved DailyKos. :)

I'd like to see this as a positive thing, but I'm sure companies who don't really care will take their place. Oh well.

[SacTown Chronic]

I love Andrew Sullivan's (America's favorite faggot conservative blogger) response to Coulter:

"I am not a faggot. I am a man."




You go, girl!

[Tramspotter]

I have no problems (and fully support) hate speech laws. They are intended to increase to punishment for violent crimes that are the result of prejudice, bigotry, and hate. These laws do not apply in Ms Coulters case – she did not commit an act of physical violence.

I have a problem punishing motives and mindsets of any kind even if fully understood. And find people who would dangerous

Yes.

As seen by the gleeful tirade against Colter if we were to plug in a name of someone you completely disagree with targeting another group I wonder if your reaction would be the same

Ad hominem? Hardly. To reply to a nasty and inappropriate remark by condemning said remark is not an ad hominem attack.

WB attacked her looks is that germane to the issue at hand or acceptable to you during other political discourse?

And yes, I would react the same way if any other public figure made a remark of that type.

Fair Enough.

Yes.

Doesn't take much more justification to bring governmental power to bear in silencing speech.


No.

well if a mob starts forming or a sufficiency of punishment sub committee is ever put together I hope that they are as generous as you would be

I’m not trying to cast a shadow on you – just trying to interpret your post as best I can. You seem to be (to me, at least) defending her actions; as if you agreed with her and believe there was nothing wrong with what she said. If this is not what you meant, I apologize.

:cakes: :cakes: You use the phrase "her actions" and tone of the thought police. I am defending her right to "her free speech" and others their right to make their own conclusions :cakes: :cakes: If this is not what you meant, I apologize.

[wendybeth]

I posted a picture which completely backs up my comment. I accept full responsibility for what I said, and I don't intend to spin it any other way. She looks like Richard O'Brien's twin.

http://ia.ec.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/11/07/12m.jpg


I think that she is like the picture of Dorian Grey, only she's the attic version. Her exterior is beginning to reflect her interior.

[blueerica]

IMO, she can say what she wants, but also needs to be prepared for people hating what she says.

Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves, Ann Coulter included. For example, if I want to sit in West Hollywood and make a comment about anything while including the word faggot - there had better be either context or at least humor (she had neither as far as I could tell) or I should be prepared for whatever backlash I get. I'm sure she had to realize that she was being taped. Common sense should dictate what was expected to happen, so that anyone in her camp might be shocked is surprising. Just gotta see AC for who she is.

Ann Coulter, like her or hate her, is not dumb. She may have some polarizing beliefs, but she's not dumb. She wants attention, she's getting attention - she certainly is doing the majority of conservatives no favor. I see little need to defend her or attack her. I just see her for who she is and who she has always been, a media-hungry attention-craving borderline-lunatic. I mean really, few things she's ever said really make that much sense. I think most of what comes through her lips is just to push the envelope.

At best, she's a satirist - at worst she's a bitch. Whatever. :rolleyes:

[Alex]

She looks fine to me in that picture. She's not within my preferred range of physical characteristics but I don't see anything freaky in it.

I'm all in favor of thought police. I'm just not in favor of government sponsored thought police. Judicious use of social pressure is the best defense we have against the nanny state. It is only by abdicating our own judgment on what we'll accept as appropriate behavior in others that we
begin to welcome the government into that role.

Of course, defining "judicious" is the real sticking point.

[Alex]

Over the weekend NPR's On the Media had a segment on Louis Farrakhan and how he manipulates the media and how the media is more than happy to have him fill a caricature for him. The key point according to one of the people is that Farrakhan realized that at a subconscious level there existed within the American black community a feeling that if the white man likes you, there is something suspicious about you and if the white man hates you, you must be doing something right. And it doesn't really matter whether the white man is right to revile you.

And the press is always happy to focus on people who speak in declarative sentences lacking any gray, especially if they'll take edge positions.

Ann Coulter, it seems to me, does the same thing. For some population of conservatives out there, if the liberals (including the media) hate you, you must be doing something right. And it is irrelevant how justified that hatred is. And Coulter is more than willing to manipulate this and the media is just happy to have someone who will say outrageous things. (I have no doubt that this same population of consumers exists on the left, I just don't think there is anybody currently extant so skilled at manipulating it as Coulter is on the right).

[JWBear]

:cakes: :cakes: You use the phrase "her actions" and tone of the thought police. I am defending her right to "her free speech" and others their right to make their own conclusions :cakes: :cakes: If this is not what you meant, I apologize.

I never said that she (or anybody, for that matter) doesn't have the right to speak her mind. She can say whatever she wants to. Just as we are free to speak out against what she says. Freedom of speech is a two way street; and freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

(And what the hell do :cakes: have to do with the discussion?)

[JWBear]

Over the weekend NPR's On the Media had a segment on Louis Farrakhan and how he manipulates the media and how the media is more than happy to have him fill a caricature for him. The key point according to one of the people is that Farrakhan realized that at a subconscious level there existed within the American black community a feeling that if the white man likes you, there is something suspicious about you and if the white man hates you, you must be doing something right. And it doesn't really matter whether the white man is right to revile you.

And the press is always happy to focus on people who speak in declarative sentences lacking any gray, especially if they'll take edge positions.

Ann Coulter, it seems to me, does the same thing. For some population of conservatives out there, if the liberals (including the media) hate you, you must be doing something right. And it is irrelevant how justified that hatred is. And Coulter is more than willing to manipulate this and the media is just happy to have someone who will say outrageous things. (I have no doubt that this same population of consumers exists on the left, I just don't think there is anybody currently extant so skilled at manipulating it as Coulter is on the right).

Too true, my friend. Too true.

[Morrigoon]

I'm all in favor of thought police. I'm just not in favor of government sponsored thought police. Judicious use of social pressure is the best defense we have against the nanny state. It is only by abdicating our own judgment on what we'll accept as appropriate behavior in others that we
begin to welcome the government into that role.

Of course, defining "judicious" is the real sticking point.

Well put! And an excellent point :snap:

[Morrigoon]

The right to free speech relates to the right to say something (such as "George Bush is a worthless piece of sh*t") without getting arrested. Doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Coulter responds:
Coulter Doesn't Get It, Pt 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlk9Hg6brJA) (Hannity & Colmes via YouTube)
Coulter Doesn't Get It, Pt 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTe-ALMNPF0) (Hannity & Colmes via YouTube)

I respond:
No Ms. Coulter, the word "faggot" is not just a schoolyard taunt. It does imply the person to whom it's being directed is not only gay, but sub-human. And yes, it is very offensive to gays. What makes you think you're even remotely qualified to determine what gays find offensive? "Faggot" is equivalent to a racial slur. Gays most definitely have been and continue to be legally discriminated against.

When you say "we're against gay marriage" and they in the very next sentence say, "I don't want gays to be discriminated against" you are contradicting yourself.

You also said, "I think we [Republicans] have the pro-gay position..." Are you kidding me? Did you really just say that? Did you even think about those words? Really??? The GOP does not need any help from the Liberally-biased media in describing Republicans--you folks do a fine job of that all by yourselves.

[Alex]

While I can't remember ever using the word (other than in a self referential way), it is a bit of a fuzzy line since "fag" seems to have taken up a cozy place in mostly non-offensive slang vocabulary. I don't know that adding "got" makes it a whole lot more offensive.

But as with so many things, offense is in the eye of the beholder.

[Ghoulish Delight]

No Ms. Coulter, the word "faggot" is not just a schoolyard taunt. It does imply the person to whom it's being directed is not only gay, but sub-human. It's even more insidious than that. Because she's right, she didn't mean to imply that he was homosexual. She meant to imply that he's "bad". So by using "faggot" what she's really saying is, "Hey, we all agree that faggots are bad, right? Well, then I'm going to call this guy a faggot and, since we're all in agreement that faggots are bad, then you'll all understand that I'm saying he's bad."

Lovely.