Quote of the Day 2
Ann Coulter just won't go away. She seem to know something that other people (including John Edwards' wife) doesn't.
“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.”
The video is from the Conservative Political Action Conference. It is amazing how wingnuts talk amongst themselves. These GOP political operatives wouldn't applaud in a mainstream audience. At the CPAC they can be themselves. Which is kinda scary.
Update: The Edwards campaign is using Coulter's remarks to solicit contributions.
Labels: ann coulter
posted by Michael Hussey @ 5:34 PM
18 Comments
18 Comments:
It's amazing how people get all worked up about what she says. It's like she's somebody to be threatened by. Just ignore her and maybe she'll go away.
But what I find interesting about this is this comment: “John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power,” said his campaign manager, David E. Bonior.
Really? John poses the greatest threat? Didn't somebody say that about Hillary? And Obama? I'm serious! Why is everybody suddenly becoming the 'greatest threat'? Is this true or just a way of improving ones own status? And we are supposed to believe what they say? Our elections are getting more like a political circus act every year. And I'm not singling out any party on that comment!
It's tough to ignore her and see her go away, Frznagn, when CPAC keeps bringing her back to be a speaker. In fact, she was advertised as one of the main speakers and her picture has been on the front page of cpac.org, advertising the fact that the Ann Coulter would be at the conference, for the past year. The conservatives wouldn't ignore her because she draws in the crowds. I stood in the line to see Coulter speak (though, to be fair, I joined the line before Mitt spoke and, at that time, part of it must have been for him). The line had to be 500 people long to get into a ballroom that, by my estimate, could hold 2000 people. (I'm probably underestimating on both counts.) It was like waiting in line for an amusement park ride, and by the end of her speech I was still 10 feet away from the ballroom doors. Luckily for my job as a reporter at CPAC, they had a TV setup in the hall outside the ballroom so I could see the speech, and when she called John Edwards a "faggot" my jaw smacked the floor as everyone around me hooted and laughed.
Afterwards, I visited the exhibit hall where Coulter was doing a book signing, and the line for that was huge, too -- larger then I had seen for any other uathor at CPAC. Afterwards I jotted thoughts down in my notebook about how, at that point, she was definitely the "rockstar" of the conference. Her speech draw as many people (maybe more) as Mitt and Rudy's speeches -- and those were major presidential candidates!
Some big name GOP bloggers are taking up cause against Coulter now, and that makes me happy because it's about friggen time that conservatives leaders got a conscience and excised Coulter before she embarrasses them again. But, you know what... I heard everyone cheer at her comments. I wasn't technically in the room at the time, just a few feet away, but it doesn't matter. I know what their reaction was. And that's why Coulter is invited to represent conservative causes -- inflammatory comments have made her popular with their base. Though, this time, she might have finally gone too far. NEver thought I'd see the day when Coulter actually took it too far even for her standards...
For some reason I just don't care for her much. She reminds me of those hollywood types that will do anything for attention. Sad.
Speaking of doing anything... have you seen the latest vid on Hillary? Where she speaks with a thick (for her anyways) southern accent? It was amazing. Is this pandering to a base or what?
Good to hear from you again. I made a post over on Sine's site but she had the typical response. I wish she could actually stay focused and answer a question. It contained a bit on "greatest threat". It's a term I've seen tossed around a lot. Have you noticed that too?
Frznagn, you are aware Sine blogs here. The threee of us blogged together at Loaded Mouth. I enjoy her blogging.
I have heard Hillary's speech at the civil rights march. Weird.
Yes, I do. So now nobody can say I'm talking behind her back. She may have some good points and a certain flair for style, but I don't care much for personal attacks on people. As much as I dislike certain people, you don't see me attacking them in such a mean spirited and personal level. I'm not out there wishing that people were killed in terrorist attacks and calling them faggots. See the Bill & Ann celebs for that show.
Frznagn,
Unfortunately, my site is down for maintenance - so, I can't wuite figure out what "mean spirited and personal" attacks I have made that ruffled your feathers so much, nor would I have posted this response here.
Answering your questions is like going through a maze, one that leads to nowhere, because, regardless how anyone answers a question, it's going to come back around to the fact that, in almost all cases, you try to compare apples and oranges, and therefore, there are no salient points to make or answers to be given. Half the time I have a hell of a time making sense of what point you are trying to make. It's like going around in circles.
In particular, you always comment against global warming and the environment. Always. There has never been a moment when you haven't challenged it, so you are quick to go after any microbe that vindicates your stance - one you don't have the facts for nor understand from what I have seen of your writing. For example: What does the term 'Global Warming' mean? How about 'Climate Change?' Seriously, can you define the terms without looking them up?
Your issue over Gore's electric bill, one where the electric company themselves said they had never given out this information, is apparently false - this was indicated the day after this silliness came out.
Regardless, let's say it's true (as you purport, simply because Gore didn't bother to deny it). 10,000 SF home = $1,000 electric bill. 2,000SF home=$250 electric bill. The first home is supposedly Gore. The second home is the average or norm. Additionally Gore is fitting his home out with all types of energy saving and energy creating devices. What are you doing?
In future, if you want to bitch about me, at least do it on my site. It's pretty strange for it to show up here, in the comments on a post I haven't even commented on myself before now and on Michael's site. What? Did you think I would remove your comment? I haven't done it except one time, and that comment was pure outright filth and slander against a friend of mine. I banned that person as well.
BTW, Ripley replied to your comment again. I get them via email, so I have seen that.
(Shoot! I got home really late from work and I wanted to write a post tonight, but wasted my time doing this instead.)
(Thank you and sorry Michael.)
By the way, I don't recall wishing anyone had died in a terrorist attack. You often misinterpret what I write. Which, is part of my frustration with responding to your comments.
Short answer: I stand by my bloggers even when I disagree with them. My support is the same for Sine as it is for Litbrit and Zen. This is a lefty blog. I am not trying to please the Right.
I could swear that I've written well enough that ya'll could understand the point. Then when you don't understand it, I clarify it. And for some reason you still can't seem to move away from your original impression of what I was trying to say. As much as I keep saying I'm not comparing with Iraq, ya'll keep thinking I am. Even after I deny it.
So lets try to clear up any misunderstanding here:
Sine:"I can't wuite figure out what "mean spirited and personal" attacks I have made that ruffled your feathers so much"
Ok, lets look at some quotes from your post:
McPresident
pissant, dead weight “citizens” are chortling themselves hoarse
completely ignored by, the sociopathic, morally retarded assholes
these clowns
we’ve got a bunch of monkeyboys pissing their frilly underthings because Al Gore doesn’t live in a cave...
Enough examples? You make it so if you disagree, for whatever reason, then you deserve one of these names. Not exactly nice.
And about one of my points, I'll quote myself: Second, I wasn't comparing the two. I was commenting on your viewpoint about how the stories are reported. When the left gets a negative item, the right gets "in a latherous orgasm over a story". But when the right gets a negative item and the left gets all over, where is the same negative connotations? It's not there.
As you can see, I clearly state that I am not comparing the two.
Sine: "In particular, you always comment against global warming and the environment. Always."
Not always. But don't forget, at least one of my posts was tongue-in-cheek all the way. I was having fun with tas! And I also said that it is impossible to have 5+ billion people and not have an impact on the warming of the planet. It's on LM, trust me. But I did see reports that this was going to be a warmer winter this year and up here it has been much colder then average. Or at least it seems that way.
Sine:"Your issue over Gore's electric bill,"
What issue? I never complained about it! All I said was that he never denied it. And yes, not denying it does look bad in politics! Sure, there are exceptions, but it is a general rule. Show me where I said something bad about his bills or even him being hypocritical. You may not believe this, but I really don't have a negative image of him. Or shall I say, no more than any other politician.
Sine: "For example: What does the term 'Global Warming' mean? How about 'Climate Change?' Seriously, can you define the terms without looking them up?"
Ok, can I give you a def that will match the dictionary? Probably not. But they are self-explanatory. Global Warming: A general overall warming of the planet.
Climate Change: A variation in the climate. (Positive and negative apply)
Oversimplified maybe, but they work.
Sine:"What are you doing?"
Not enough. But according to PETA, we'd be better off focusing on becoming vegans instead of hybrid cars and the like. I'm going to keep eating meat and kill the planet. Besides, I never complained about his usage! He can use as much as he damn well pleases! I don't really care that much.
Sine: "In future, if you want to bitch about me, at least do it on my site."
Sorry. I'll try to watch what I say.
And lastly...
Sine:"By the way, I don't recall wishing anyone had died in a terrorist attack. You often misinterpret what I write. Which, is part of my frustration with responding to your comments."
This is clearly a misunderstanding on your part. Yes, it is. Look at my comment again- "I'm not out there wishing that people were killed in terrorist attacks and calling them faggots. See the Bill & Ann celebs for that show."
Notice the key part at the end. The "Bill & Ann celebs". That would be Bill Mahar with him making a comment about Cheney in Afghanistan, and Ann Coulter with her faggot comment about Edwards. How in the world could you think I was talking about you??? And I have to take back what I said about Bill. I read his interview with O'Reilly and his comments were taken out of context. My bad.
And for Michael, I'm a bit confused. Do I understand it to mean that if they are wrong (and I'm right), you will stand by them? Standing by your friends is great, but I feel that if they are wrong then they need to be set straight. General rule, no need to be nasty about anything. And about not pleasing the right, I wouldn't expect you to. The one thing I do 'expect' is fairness. If a crooked pol on the right does X, and he is raked over the coals... I would expect the same if that was done by someone on the left. We should have a high standard for both sides! Having someone on your side screw you over doesn't feel any better then someone on the other side. You still get screwed either way. Fair enough?
F:
You should check on who wrote the article. All the quotes from the original post from my site were not written by me. They were written by another writer that posts on my site and who responded to your comments there as well.
Your definition for Global Warming, as indicated, is the commonly misunderstood definition for the term and way too simplistic. Go to the Union of Concerned Scientists and read: Global Warming FAQs
I've been working 16-18 hour days this week and I'm too tired for this. Good night.
Frznagn, you followed a blogger to my site just to disagree with her. That is lame. I stand my bloggers. End of story. Don't you have a blog where you can post your thoughts?
I went to the site, and this is what they said about Global Warming- "Global warming" refers to the rise in the Earth's temperature resulting from an increase in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
You complain that I'm too simplistic, but why? I said that I was in my post! But I do disagree with their definition. As part of their definition they state a cause. The key part is singular. So if the planet was becoming warmer by an outside source, say the Sun, wouldn't the same base results be the same? The planet would be warmer either way. The cause is different, the result is the same. Out of curiosity, what would it be called if the Sun was the source of warming?
I didn't check out any of the articles, or shall I say, I don't recall checking them out.
Michael, you said I followed a blogger here to disagree with them. Where do you get this information from??? You made the original post and I was the first to respond. How can I possibly be following anybody? And I didn't disagree with anyone here! Take another look at my first post. Whom was I disagreeing with???
I won't argue the lameness of following somebody since it is not applicable here. But if you are basing this information on something someone told you.... What can I say, look at the evidence. I made the first reply-to YOU. And there was no disagreement.
So I'm not sure exactly what you're standing by. You can listen to what someone tells you, or you can look at the truth before your eyes. If you wish to ignore the truth then there is nothing more that I can say here.
And no, I don't have my own blog set up yet. I've been taking a bit of a break from blogging. And I haven't found anything that has the features I like. But if I had one you'd be welcome there!
But in case my mind has left the building, I'd really like to know who I followed and what I said that was a disagreement. I know I visit infrequently, but you should know me well enough that I wouldn't come here to attack someone else. And if it Sine that you are referring to, I did apologize to her. You should know if I've done someone wrong I've apologized for it. I don't see apologizing as a weakness.
I take it your lack of response proves that I'm correct. If I were wrong you'd have something to show me. If you can not be fair and honest about this matter, then that brings into question everything else you have on your site. It's easy to look at the facts in front of you and make a decision and yet you remain silent. Better quiet than admit that you're wrong? Is there something wrong with admitting that you're wrong and apologizing? Sad, really sad if that is true.
I recall on LM all the people bashing the right because they stood by Bush and his cronies because he/they were wrong. So, if the people on the right stand by their friends/party then they are bad, while the left does it and there is nothing wrong? Afuckinmazing. And they say the right is full of hypocrites.
I think you're looking for a fight in a thread that me or Sine could care less about. I stand by my blogger. Start your own blog and you can diss us as often as you like. You are lucky I didn't go all Taz on you. You are reminding me of the Bryan troll on Pushing Rope and Loaded Mouth.
I'm not looking for a fight. But you did accuse me of something and the very least you can do is show me the facts. You do seem concerned about facts with other people/sites, why not here? As I've said, it is great to stand by your friends, but please, if you see that the facts show them wrong then you should address them. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing.
I don't recall Bryan and I don't want to diss you. But you accused me of something and all I'm asking for is you to show me the evidence. I don't like to be called a liar without a basis for it.
I did not follow anyone here to diss them. I posted the first reply to you and did not diss anyone. That's the fact. What is so hard or wrong about admitting that?
Go ahead and call Tas. I'm sure he'd enjoy this! Even if he ragged on me I'd enjoy his rant. I like his style!!! Where is Bukakke man at anyways? :P
Oops, my bad. I thought you said you were going to call tas. That'll teach me to read without my glasses!
Taz wouldn't enjoy this. He is tired of flame wars. It is my site. This post was about Ann Coulter. You took it off thread. Sine doesn't care anymore and neither do I. Do you have this post bookmarked just so you can keep commenting?
I made a comment that was on topic that contained two items not on topic. This is nothing new for bloggers. So I don't see a problem with it.
But since your so picky, you stated this in your Edwards on Iraq post:
'Edwards admits he was wrong. That is something President Bush has a hard time doing.'
Why complain about someone else not admitting something when you are the same? I believe their is a special word that describes this. Hmm, me thinks it starts with the letter 'H'.
Funny how you only care about other people when they don't act proper. I'd like to know why you think you're so special that you don't have to follow the rules that you expect others to. That's fair.
No, I don't have this bookmarked. And yes, I did set up a blog on Wordpress. I'm not at all impressed at the editing capabilities. I'll probably find something else. In the meantime, you can rag on me at: http://frznagn.wordpress.com/
But I must warn you, you're wasting your time going there. Kinda empty and sucky. Not at all like your site. Honestly Michael, I like you. I'm just confused as all can be on your behavior. It's almost like somebody else is posting for you.
All I'm asking you to do is show me the proof that you have that you accused me of. If you don't have any then retract your accusation. I've shown you my proof. Is that not good enough? This is not a left vs right issue. Just plain facts. Isn't the truth more important than taking sides? I've agreed with the left when the right was wrong. Are you saying I shouldn't have? I should have stood by them no matter how wrong they were? Think about it, k?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home