Comments on: Jay Leno whitewashes Halle Berry

By: blond free

blond free — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:44:23 +0000

blond free…

Great post!!…

By: BrianNY

BrianNY — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:21:59 +0000

Buck,
As Andy Dufresne once said: “How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?”

Her private definition of f#gg#t is weak

Millions of kids on playgrounds over a period of decades does not a private definition make. If Coulter (for some non-ironic reason) had called Edwards a p#ssy instead, would you believe she was playing up to his “prissy-boy” image, or literally calling him a certain part of the female anatomy?

…Isaiah Washington, which was about a gay slur, and subsequent rehab.

Indeed. Isaiah was apparently being hurtful, and not ironic.

Much condemnation came from right wingers after the incident.

Indeed, mostly for the fact that such a statement was more suitable for the set of the Bill Maher Show, and not a conservative convention.

One can start calling Obama a n#gg#r, and say, oh I didn’t mean it that way, I meant it a different way, blah, blah, blah.

Maybe, but for the record, a quick google search shows Coulter never said such a thing. However, same search does show a liberal named “David Ehrenstein” did. Any condemnation there?

By: Buck I

Buck I — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:58:38 +0000

BrianNY
“my only regret” I know, I know, it’s a joke.
Her private definition of faggot is weak, in light of her own reference to Isaiah Washington, which was about a gay slur, and subsequent rehab. Much condemnation came from right wingers after the incident. One can start calling Obama a nigger, and say, oh I didn’t mean it that way, I meant it a different way, blah, blah, blah.
I don’t believe her spin on the faggot comment, you do(and don’t think it’s spin), oh well who cares.
http://www.rightwingnews/interviews/anncoulter.php.

By: BrianNY

BrianNY — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:01:04 +0000

I guess we’ll ignore the Timothy Mcveigh stuff since it’s impossble to spin.

But that’s the thing with Coulter. She never “spins” her outrageous comments. Rather, she stubbornly defends them until the other side (Couric, Colmes, Lauer, Maher, Deutsch, etc.) just huffs in exasperation.

I’ve been searching, unsuccessfully, to find the context for which Coulter gave the NY Times/McVeigh comment. I imagine it had something to do with a liberal comment of equal proportion around that time (like Bill Maher wishing Cheney had originally died in a terrorist attack…or Tony Hendra’s Thanksgiving prayer for a Cheney heart attack to occur, etc.

By: conservativesRus

conservativesRus — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:13:13 +0000

Thank you. Guess I’m not a joke.

By: Buck I

Buck I — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:07:54 +0000

If your opinions would be the same if the political parties and actors were reversed, you have a differing opinion, but some degree of character.

If not, you’re a joke.

By: conservativesRus

conservativesRus — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:15:22 +0000

It seems to me BrianNY explained it quite well. The concept doesn’t seem all that difficult to understand.
However, since you’ve made up your mind about what Ann didn’t say and no amount of logic or reasoning will change it, there really isn’t any point in discussing it further.
It’s amazing that you KNOW that I believe “whatever spin Coulter gives” and/or “partisan role play”. Your knowledge is limited.

By: Buck I

Buck I — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:48:38 +0000

and you choose to believe whatever spin Coulter gives. I don’t. Gee, there’s the difference. “Coulda been said better, or with more tact.” It’s comin out of your ears.
Since, I don’t give free passes or play games, I can say that if Michael Moore stepped into the Coulter role, and said all of the same things about Mitt Romney, my opinion on the issue would be the same. Funny how I can have independent thought, w/o having to resort to partisan role playing.
I don’t know whose in your pocket, with all “know what the rest of us are thinking” nonsense is. I just read what you type, and what you choose to believe, and what issues you refuse to address. It’s typical of(to borrow your words)several posters on this site.

By: conservativesRus

conservativesRus — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:58:43 +0000

Buck – i never said it was the most tactful thing to say, or couldn’t have been said differently. You seem to suffer the same issue as several other posters on this site – you seem to be reading comprehension challenged. But since you know better – even know what I’m thinking and what all of the rest of us are thinking, I’ll (not) apologize for what I (didn’t) say/mean.

By: Buck I

Buck I — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:23:58 +0000

I guess we’ll ignore the Timothy Mcveigh stuff since it’s impossble to spin. Typical.
Okay where’s my blond wig, good, here we go:

“Well, um in conclusion, I’d like to say more about some of the other democratic candidates, but in the last couple of years I’ve learned that saying certain things would require me to subsequently apologize perfusely and enter rehab.”

Gee, funny how that can be pulled off like that or similarly w/o calling John Edwards a faggot. How on earth could I figure out how to do that. Maybe because I’m not some hackey, shamesless bigot, trying to sell more books.

Now I know if Ann Coulter ever started a cult, she’d have unchallenging followers read for the final sip.

By: conservativesRus

conservativesRus — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:33:54 +0000

#131 Buck – yes it does take super(un)natural abilities to see what Ann did not say. What she meant, she explained, others have explained – but since that does not fit with what you want it to mean, you continue to choose to believe what you want. That’s one of the beauties of America – you can be wrong if you want to.

By: This is how you apologize « Bookworm Room

This is how you apologize « Bookworm Room — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:14:41 +0000

[...] said that, I’m with Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin in decrying the different way in which the media treated this flap, as opposed to flaps emanating [...]

By: granite

granite — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:47:16 +0000

#127 Jim M.:

“It is called ‘projection’…”

Exactly!

(Sorry if I repeat too much.) Tends to go arm-in-arm with other assorted
“debate” tactics used by those of a particular political persuasion/holding a particular worldview, such as: topic-changing; ad hominem attacks; confusion; diversion; and focusing on irrelevant, obscure items.

As I’ve heard the lawyers’ rercommendation to be:

If you can’t argue the case;

argue the law;

if you can’t argue the law;

attck your opponent personally.

Ever notice that a debate with a leftist sort of resembles a witch trial; where the leftist is the boss Knight Templar, and the traditionalist/conservative is Rebecca (from “Ivanhoe”)?

No matter how one might respond to the leftist, words will be twisted, and rules of the game will be changed – midstream, as it were.
It’s sort of like expecting to have a fair shot at a coin-toss, where the other guy, tossing the coin, says,”OK. Call it. Heads I win – tails, you lose!”

By: Buck I

Buck I — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:44:13 +0000

Russ-
If you think it takes supernatural abilities to see that Ann wanted to call John Edwards a slur, you underestimate the power of common sense.

Pixel-

Sorry to read about you serious issues with homosexuals.(classy people don’t say faggot) It kinda reminds me of Senator Craig, and the movie American Beauty. Oh well, it’s not my problem.

By: BrianNY

BrianNY — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:38:45 +0000

Buck I said:

…but the whole point of the schtick was to call Edwards a homophobic slur

It was not the “whole point.” Much like the “whole point” of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was not to actually boil impoverished, Irish babies for food. There is always a larger point to well constructed satire.

To repeat, Coulter satirically nailed two birds with one stone. 1) making fun of the confusing rules of political correctness vs. free speech mess on a liberal Hollywood set. 2) poking fun at John Edwards’ “gurly-man” persona without actually calling him a “gurly-man,” but coyly implying that she “could have” if she wanted to, had it not been for the new “Isaiah” rules.

By the way, Coulter stated that she treats the word “f#gg#t” as a playground slur indicating a “priss” or a “limp wrist.” That may describe some homosexuals, but certainly not all. It also describes some heterosexuals, but not all. Coulter laughed off the “homophobic” charge by stating that it is silly to imply that Edwards is not a heterosexual.