7
WingNet Refuses To Exorcise The Coultergeist
In 1959 when I wrote [The Best Man], the Democratic candidates for the nomination [included...] Adlai Stevenson… who was being smeared as a homosexual — and an indecisive one to boot….
When I based the character of the wicked candidate in the play on Richard Nixon, I thought it would be amusing if liberal politicians were to smear unjustly that uxorious man as a homosexual. I was promptly condemned by a conservative columnist who said that my plot was absurdly melodramatic since no man could rise to any height in American politics if he were thought to be a fag. Yet this same columnist used to delight in making coy allusions in print to Stevenson’s lack of robustness.
— Gore Vidal, “Political Melodramas”, New Statesman, 1973
What Adlai Stevenson had to endure then, John Edwards has endured for a good while lately. Here’s an example from 2004:
OK just caught debate rerun on CNN. What can one say about John Edwards’s performance? He certainly did not make Al Gore’s error in 1996: With his repeated and worshipful descriptions of John Kerry—not to mention Edwards’s moist good looks—you have to say that he would fill the role of First Lady much better than Teresa Heinz is likely to do.
And until lately, that sort of smear-job — indecent but ‘civil,’ as is to be expected from one of Dear Leader’s speechwriters — has sufficed for even Ann Coulter. Then she upped the ante at CPAC; she said the first worst-word that had always been in flashing in the wingnut hivemind when the subject at hand was John Edwards, but never stated: ‘faggot’.
For wingnuts, John Edwards is weak, puny, submissive, girly. So they characterize him as effeminate and faggoty, homophobia and misogyny being the vehicles through which Reichwing Super Macho Manliness (singlehandedly defending Western Civ against the Muslim Horde) instinctively expresses itself. Coulter’s epithet for Edwards is new, but her sentiment — which is what really matters — has been passed around the WingNet so many times it’s nearly careworn. But for plainly and crudely stating what the WingNet has always thought — and continues to think — about John Edwards specifically, and by extention, liberals in general, Coulter has inspired precious little substantive criticism, some ‘criticism,’ and several outright defences — as she herself predicted. Mostly, she has politically (but emphatically not morally) embarassed them. Mostly, wingnuts agree with her sentiments, but disdain the style and regret the venue in and at which she saw fit to communicate them. The following is a list of ‘shorter’ versions of wingnut responses, more or less at random.
Gay Patriot: ‘Sure, Coulter’s joke was bad, but what about those Huffington Post commenters’ remarks about Dick Cheney? Show some perspective!’
Ann Althouse: ‘I’ve never approved of Ann Coulter. But you people complaining about her are actually promoting her, so there. Besides, I’m the real victim here.’
Roger L. Simon: ‘Ann Coulter is a loud and selfish personality, all right, but let me tell you about someone worse: Howard Dean.’
Q and O: ‘Stupid Republicans, letting Coulter speak at CPAC is just like when the Democrats let Michael Moore sit in a VIP area at DNC ’04: Inept-PR equivalence as well as moral equivalence!’
Kathryn Jean Lopez: ‘The real outrage is that Ann Coulter’s speech at CPAC distracted people from Mitt Romney, the love of my life and fire of my loins. But now Edwards has capitalized on Coulter’s tactical mistake so let’s talk about Mitt again and, like, forget all this other stuff.’
The Yoest Infection: ‘I was there! But no one was paying attention to what she said (or we’d have been shocked, shocked), only that she talked so briefly. But otherwise, the crowd loved her.’
Jules Crittenden: ‘That’s what free speech gets us, Republicans. What an embarassment. But otherwise, who cares about what Ann Coulter said… Oh, look, here’s some Leftist misogyny I’ve pulled out of my ass! Loook!’
Dan Riehl: ‘Free speech, free speech! But I hate it that she exercised it there, because now the Left won’t ever shut up. Shut up, Left! Shut Up! BLARGH!!!’
Rich Lowry ‘Cantcha take a joke? Well of course you can; you’re just using Coulter’s remarks to unfairly tar all conservatives!’
Jason Mattera: ‘Yeah, what Rich said. Also, John Edwards is a faggot and all conservatives think so.’
Tucker Carlson: ‘Isn’t she awesome? She called me a fag too, once, and it, like, totally made my day.’
Stanley Kurtz: ‘Ann Coulter speaks truth to power! Psych! No, actually, she was wrong to say what she did, but then the Left is chockful of haters and, hey, at least our side condemns such unseemly eruptions as Coulter’s.’
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ‘Ann Coulter’s a comic genius and her heart is in the far-right place, but I think this time her joke may have been too sophisticated.’
Bill O’Reilly: ‘Meh, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher: What’s the difference?’
Michelle Malkin ‘Ann Coulter’s unique rhetorical habits have unfortunately divided conservatives over the subject of political strategy and by the way, Kristin Powers, don’t fuck with me or I’LL TEAR YOUR HEAD OFF AND SHIT DOWN YOUR NECK RAAAAAAHHHHH!!!’
Kathryn Jean Lopez: ‘I’m linking to this PR campaign which is concerned not with moral issues but damage control post-Coultergate, so don’t say I don’t care about the important things. Ann, you primadonna, you will not embarass us again!’
Doughy Pantload: ‘Don’t you dare equate Ann Coulter to Dinesh D’Souza! Because, um, Dinesh is a scholar. [I will not mention at this moment, presumably because I'd hate to imagine myself in the same boat as John Edwards, that Ann called me in so many words a faggot for sacking her from National Review for her "kill their leaders, invade their countries, and Christianize them" remarks.]‘
Red State Yokels: ‘Ann Coulter loves Mitt Romney!!! Dumdedumdedumm *whistles softly*’
Red State Yokels: ‘Dammit! I never thought that after I’d railed against Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, I’d have to turn against a fellow reactionary! Thanks a lot, Ann Coulter! But since I’m a paragon of consistency, turn against I must… Also, my post is a template for those who wish to get their diary on Red State’s front page: All you have to do is put Erick Erickson at the top of a list of ‘brilliant’ conservative intellectuals preferable to Coulter.’
Red State Yokels: ‘While I totally respect the legions of Coulter fans out there, I can’t overlook the fact that Ann’s just not a team player. PS — The gall of John Edwards’s response to Coulter. The gall!!!’
Red State Yokels: ‘I concur with that postscript! I mean, John Edwards is so obviously depraved that I bet he prayed for Coulter’s comments just so he could make more money, the bloodsucker!’
Shrieking Harpy: ‘Of course John Edwards is a closeted fag.’
Shrieking Harpy: ‘I love Ann Coulter!!!1! Faggot, wuss, pussy, whatever, Coulter’s right: These words accurately describe John Edwards and all the conservatives shunning Coulter! Faggots!!’
Shrieking Harpy: ‘Seriously, Edwards is a total fag. Coulter should be applauded for calling out a man who presents himself as heterosexual on his hypocrisy.’
Mickey Kaus: Since Ann Coulter’s occasional social companionship is the only means I’ll ever have of being seen in public with a woman, she can say anything she wants and it’s cool with me.’ ‘Hey, she didn’t outright say that fags would burn in hell, so what’s the big deal?’
Matt Lewis: ‘She was just being herself.’
Matt Barber: ‘So Ann Coulter said “faggot” but meant that John Edwards was a pussy. Good for all that. And as for the Left’s response, can you say “double standards”?’
Michael Medved: ‘Ann Coulter needs to apologise for saying a naughty word and also because John Edwards is married with children and therefore cannot be an icky yukky homo.’
Mike Gallagher: ‘Why are all these conservatives, whom I won’t begin to name, throwing Ann Coulter under the bus? Don’t they know we need her because she fights back against the cruel liberal horde? Idiots!’
Hugh Hewitt: ‘Like Michael Moore, Coulter is a comedian who has made herself politically radioactive.’
Mary Katherine Ham: ‘Ann Coulter was formerly useful as a “gateway conservative”, attracting the masses to Republicanism, but now she may be more useful as a shunned figure, so that we conservatives can show we’re a big tent party and that we’re nicer than the Left.’
Are there any wingnuts who didn’t defend, pseudo-critique, or otherwise equivocate Coulter’s comments? Much more importantly — apologies for bigoted speech being meaningless if the bigotry remains but unsaid — did anyone unequivocally condemn what Ann Coulter meant? Yes: Captain Ed made a good effort at it, even if he faltered somewhat in his update to the post. Also, surprisingly, Confederate Yankee.
By far the majority of the WingNet refuses to meaningfully (on moral grounds rather than for reasons of political strategy, or because of ‘incivil’ naughty words) betray Coulter because she’s their pet demon-vandal, terrorizing decent society by saying exactly what wingnuts feel, even if she says it so crudely at times that it’s a temporary political embarrassment. Morally, they’re with her in perfect communion. They can no more exorcise her than exorcise themselves.
owlbear1 said,
March 7, 2007 at 13:58
What do you expect from Bush sycophants? Honest and thoughtful consideration?
HTML Mencken said,
March 7, 2007 at 14:08
Gah. I fucked up in editing and posted this a bit too soon. I think it’s fixed now.
Qetesh the Shaved Abyssinian said,
March 7, 2007 at 14:08
Well done Coulter, say I. We all know that where a man puts his willy has a direct and significant impact on his ability to rule the country. [/complete fucking ignorance]
Honestly, why don’t they just insist that all presidential candidates play elimination rounds of the biscuit game? Losers have to eat the biscuit and withdraw their nomination, so their absolute girliness and humiliation is visible to all.
Either that, or get ‘em all up on stage, on live television across the nation, across the world, and get ‘em all to whip out their todger. We could get several experts to adjudicate: one with a tape measure, one with a pair of calipers, one with a plastic cup, and so on.
It’s really what the Presidential elections are heading towards, don’t you think? The sooner we all admit that and go for it, the better off we’ll be.
Qetesh the Shaved Abyssinian said,
March 7, 2007 at 14:09
You did indeed, Mencken-sama, but I was too civil to mention what a dog’s breakfast you made of it.
Meow.
HTML Mencken said,
March 7, 2007 at 14:10
Is it fixed now, kitty cat?
Qetesh the Shaved Abyssinian said,
March 7, 2007 at 14:33
What an embarassment.
Is that how you spell embarrassment?
Jay C. said,
March 7, 2007 at 15:12
Quite the service- doing the reading so others may be spared.
And echoing owlbear1, I wish I could say I was disappointed with the WingNet’s response, but that would mean I expected any good faith from them in the first place. Maybe it’s a step that they didn’t use the opportunity to link Edwards to the internationalist MusCom conspiracy.
(braces for link showing just that)
cd6 said,
March 7, 2007 at 16:15
this post made me realize how much I miss two minute townhall
Roy Cohn said,
March 7, 2007 at 16:31
Let me tell you, there were several layers of meaning to the nickname “Tailgunner Joe.”
spencer said,
March 7, 2007 at 16:39
There is really a blog called The Yoest Infection?
spencer said,
March 7, 2007 at 16:42
Oh, there’s not. But you can understand my reluctance to click on that link, can’t you?
Steve said,
March 7, 2007 at 16:59
I picked a random link – the Townhall post by Mary Katherine Ham – and I’m frankly unclear on what more you would have her say.
Ginger Yellow said,
March 7, 2007 at 17:08
The shrieking harpy really pulled one out of the bag this time, didn’t she?
billy pilgrim said,
March 7, 2007 at 17:10
I think this is Rightopia’s favorite type of issue. It allows them to get self righteous and hyper-ventilate about the Hypocrisy of the left, while talking about bigotry without admitting the bigotry in the first place; as a bonus, thye can simultaneously fantasize about weird Republican sex with one of their favorite weird Republican sex symbols; and all the while there’s no worry about being made to feel guilty about their roles as cheerleaders in teh Iraq war without putting their own flabby asses where their pustulent mouths are.
If only it involved the Bible somehow….
Ginger Yellow said,
March 7, 2007 at 17:11
Oh, and Althouse’s piece is a classic of the genre. She not only quotes herself twice as well as linking to herself multiple times, but quotes herself using the royal “we”. I will never again underestimate Althouse’s ability to make it all about her.
James T said,
March 7, 2007 at 17:23
“Moist good looks”? Tell me English isn’t Frum’s first language…
The Well-hung GOP: Or, Why Bush Won § Unqualified Offerings said,
March 7, 2007 at 17:48
[...] Ann Coulter having chosen to emasculate John Edwards by calling him a faggot, and thereby playing to the hatred of homosexuals that characterizes a [...]
Christian in NYC said,
March 7, 2007 at 18:29
Republicans tend to overlook the obvious contradiction — Jesus himself (assuming he existed) was a dirty hippie fag. . . . washing other men’s feet, I mean, puh-lease. So I’m always confused why righty freaks are so down w/ the “I Have a Personal Relationship With God Who The One Time He Showed Up in Human Form Came as A Dirty Hippie Fag Who Washed Men’s Feet”. Do the fundies even read this Bible thing they quote all the time?
Ok, done w/ the snark now. It started to get painful.
AkaDad said,
March 7, 2007 at 18:33
I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the Republicans would defend perjury and obstruction of justice.
Pete Bogs said,
March 7, 2007 at 18:53
be afraid… be very afraid…
Hun Yellow » Comment on WingNet Refuses To Exorcise The Coultergeist by Ginger … said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:02
[...] post by Ginger Yellow and powered by Img [...]
annieangel said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:03
But it’s ok for you all to call her a tranny. Got ya.
Frederick said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:19
annieangel,
Andy Coulter was a man, is a man, ad always has been a man, and a heterosexual man at that…
Frederick said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:19
*and
les said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:40
Did Annie (nut cracker thighs) Angel just say that Sadly No! is equivalent to CPAC? Is that good for us or bad for them?
annieangel said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:43
Nope. I said you are all a bunch of foul mouthed ignorant assholes, like Coulter.
teh l4m3 said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:48
Yeah, but you’re waaay too chunky to get on the debate team, Annie Blank.
teh l4m3 said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:51
“Moist good looks�? Tell me English isn’t Frum’s first language…
It isn’t. Evilese is his mother tongue (forked, natch.)
Dennis_D said,
March 7, 2007 at 19:58
Steve at 16:59, Mary Katharine Ham was upset that Coulter used a bad word. I get the impression if Coulter had called Edwards a “Breck Girl”, then Ham would have been OK with what Coulter said. She praises Coulter’s ability to level “stinging witticism[s]“. That those stinging witticisms frequently consist of unfair smears is OK, just as long as she doesn’t use loaded terms such as “faggot” or “raghead”.
MCH said,
March 7, 2007 at 20:24
Like most right wingers, Ms. Pie had to buy her way out of first grade. Those tests are so hard, you know.
Karl Rove II said,
March 7, 2007 at 21:01
Banana Cream Pie!
Strange Forces said,
March 7, 2007 at 21:16
I am strangely reminded of the time that Ms. Coulter said that Clinton’s promiscuity was an indicator of his homosexuality.
Matt T. said,
March 7, 2007 at 21:41
I don’t think it’s okay to call Coulter a transexual. Calling her a transexual because she looks mannish and freaky isn’t nice because it’s a slur against actual transexuals, suggesting they are, as a group, as foul and nasty as Coulter. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being a transexual if that’s what you truly feel you need to be, and I’d wager the vast swath of transexuals are decent people. In any event, using “transexual” as a slur isn’t nice because it implies being a transexual is a bad thing and to be shunned. Not cool, especially since Coulter deserves shunning regardless of her gender.
Secondly, and even if she’s a male-to-female transexual, it’s irrelevent to how foul and disgusting an excuse for a human being she is. Granted, there’s a school of thought that says if she’s hiding something from the public yet claiming to speak with authority on a subject that would be undermined if said secret came to public knowledge, said secret should be made public knowledge. If she’s a hypocrite, in other words, we oughta know, like with closeted conservatives who actively work against homosexual rights. I’m torn on that question, personally, so not being transexual, I’ll pass it by.
Calling Ann Coulter a “transexual” is, at best, an unneccessary factoid that should be handled in a much different manner or, at worst, a slur that sends more venom towards people guilty of only trying to live their lives rather than the intended target. Really, unless you think calling Ann Coulter a “transexual” is supposed to be a compliment, and you’d have to explain that context, it does nothing but slur a group of innocent people who have it shitty enough already, thank you very much. It’s exactly the same thing she did by calling Edwards a “faggot”: a little bit of contempt for him but only because he resembles superficially this large group of folks for which she has nothing but bile.
I know this comes off as yet another wagging finger, but I can’t help myself. I understand the reasons and the whys, but I simply cannot see how using “transexual” as a slur against Ann Coulter doesn’t express some sort of bigotry, either personal or cultural, towards actual transexuals. I don’t want to be that kind of person. To me, “Ann Coulter” should be a slur. She slurs women, she slurs Americans, she slurs rich white people, she slurs lawyers, she slurs conservatives, she slurs the medai and she slurs the human race.
Sorry for getting on the soapbox.
prozacula said,
March 7, 2007 at 21:59
blegh.
shut up, annie, you disgusting old whore.
you and coulter are cut from the same scant cloth.
man coulter, and mannieangel. no diff.
annieangel said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:15
See, that proves my point. You all say disgusting things all the time and it’s ok, but if a republican says something disgusting, it’s not ok.
Hypocrites.
a different brad said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:20
Y’know, I have to wonder.
You think maybe, possibly, Pam Atlas n a lot of these neo-cons would have found a problem if Ann had said this about Lieberman back in 2000 with a small addition referring to his religion?
It wouldn’t even have required another outright slur.
Coulda just said faggot jew.
Hell, wouldn’t even require the slur to set her off.
Speaking of which, what does Pam do when she has to mention Soros?
prozacula said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:21
I don’t know, your use of the word ‘assholes’ earlier really made you look classy, you stinking bitch.
prozacula said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:24
(and I was referring to MannieAngel in the earlier comment, not a different brad – unless, of course, a different brad is a bitch with bathing issues)
but really, Mannie – for YOU to use the word ‘hypocrit’ when referring to others – have you no concept of cognitive dissonance? my irony claxon is deafening.
Konnie said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:25
Please join my campaign: from now on when referring in any way to any republican in any forum – please tag them with “coulter republican”.
it’s our turn. Its one word/easy to remember and covers every conceivable republican sin!
prozacula said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:25
and, dammit, I mis-spelled hypocrite. Damn me. Damn me to hell. I know Mannie would like to be able to do so…
Gay Ninja said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:32
Edwards isn’t gay??? Say it ain’t so…
Why do you have to ruin a guy’s dream? I’m going to cry now.
Chuck Noblet said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:37
I dunno, annie, that debate seemed a little… fat to me. Better luck next time [munches pie].
a different brad said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:41
Tsktsktsk
You were munching fried stuff when you said that, fake Noblet.
Remember the onion ring you’ll never get back?
a different brad said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:43
Also, I’ve come to the theory that AA = Ann Althouse.
Mhm.
Notorious P.A.T. said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:43
Nope. I said you are all a bunch of foul mouthed ignorant assholes, like Coulter.
You got us, Annie. Lord knows if I were invited to address a room full of the most prominent people in a political movement, I’d do nothing but drop bombs, slurs, etc. like Coulter does.
eRobin said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:47
For wingnuts, John Edwards is weak, puny, submissive, girly.
For wingnuts, John Edwards is a genuine poplulist threat and so they characterize him as girly.
annieangel said,
March 7, 2007 at 22:57
You do it all the time, you in the general sense. On this board people who you hate are called all kinds of things. One of your fave things to do is say that people are gay, used as an insult.
It’s hilarious that you don’t see your own behavior, or rather how you condone yours while calling out others.
I might call you people assholes or idiots, which is just me stating the truth, or I might disagree with what you say, but all you do is hurl slurs at me, or anyone else who comes on here who you don’t like.
I mean, some idiot was calling Bush gay on here the other day, and mocking him with it, you know, making it to his mind a funny little gay bashing session at Bush’s expense.
Real funny I guess since he didn’t say FAGGOT. LOL.
If I was writing a thesis, this place would be a gold mine. ;)
a different brad said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:06
Annie, I realize an essential element of trolling is a hopefully infuriating hypocrisy, but jebus, that was crap. Too obvious, just to begin with.
Get back on your workout routine. This is crap just like limp spews.
You can be clever princess, but for the last few months all you’ve done is say “you suck you suck looooooooook aaaaaaaaaat meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”
Put some effort into it, for fucks sake.
billy pilgrim said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:11
Actually, annie, in a later comment that person expalined further that calling Bush gay was funny because, to us, it’s not a slur, but to Republicans, it is. Really, we couldn’t care less if Bush was gay, except for the whole closet thing, but to the Republicans, it would be fightin words.
But the word Coulter used is a slur, no matter how it’s intended. In fact, it is and was, intended as a slur.
Go ahead, though, and write a thesis about this place. worst things have happened here, and judging from the odd stompy noise in the cellar, continue to happen.
Too Fat said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:18
Sadly, No. Most of us have never said Coulter was a transvestite. Essentially you’re saying most of us are not hypocrites. Though I’m sure that’s not what you meant; you meant to paint us all with one brush.
Brushing that aside and taking your pitiful argument at face value, the tranny joke is based, primarily on Ann Coulter own use of her looks she promotes on all of her book jackets etc in an obvious ploy to give credibility to her arguments. A I’m-not-an-embittered-ugly-person-with-nothing-better-to-do-but-complain-about-others-I’m-a-beautiful-person-to-be-admired way. The point being that her looks on their own are not enough to justify the full body shots she insists on using again and again. It’s rather awkward and given her gawkiness, it’s going to be the obvious put down. Yes, she’s got a big Adams Apple for a woman, but it’s still a weak joke.
On the other hand, Coulter’s reference to Edwards as a “faggot” doesn’t take Edwards projected image and satirize or exaggerate it. Thus the “joke” is not fair game or witty put down. It is a slur. But look at what she said in the context of her statement. The message was not merely that John Edwards was a closeted homosexual; that was just the premise of the comment. The message was that what is wrong with the whole situation is that homosexuals ought to be ashamed of themselves and those who want to call homosexuals faggots ought to be able to do so without retribution. John Edwards was just the useful Democrat who could somehow be “tarred” with the label, even if it was a stretch to take someone who had merely been referred to vain, perhaps, and extrapolate that to mean of different sexual orientation.
The point of calling Ann Coulter a “tranny” is to insult her own use of her marginal good looks, while Coulter’s point of calling John Edwards a faggot was to insult homosexuals who are not ashamed and a society that has come to protect that. So, I don’t there is the least hypocrisy even if all of us said things like that all of the time and then called Coulter disgusting.
Speaking of which, why would a normal attractive woman want to bulk up with big muscles like that? Back in the day you wouldn’t have to go in to rehab to call a woman like that a certain name, y’know?
Phoenix Woman said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:31
Ah, so annieangel/”shoelimpy”/etc., who usually haunts Eschaton, has decided to take her sock puppets over here, eh? She doesn’t have any facts, just keeps whining ‘hypocrite’ at random intervals. She’d probably fail a Turing test.
Keep her busy, gang! That’ll give Atrios time to start a fresh thread.
Phoenix Woman said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:32
Oh, and Annie?
Don’t bother with the sockpuppets, OK? Mencken can see your IP address AND your ISP.
annieangel said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:34
To you it’s not a slur to use gay as a slur.
So, it’s ok for you to gay bash because gays don’t bother you?
I’m confused.
annieangel said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:36
Phoneix Woman…..LOL.
Gay Ninja said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:39
Moist good looks… mmmm.
John Edwards can raise my taxes ANY day!!!
Chris Moorehead said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:41
For wingnuts, John Edwards is weak, puny, submissive, girly.
I wonder if anyone unfortunate enough to have been on the stand during one of John Edwards’ product liability cross-examinations would have described him in this manner.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
March 7, 2007 at 23:42
Phoenix Woman, do you even know where you are?
Just wondering.
billy pilgrim said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:02
I know you’re confused, Annie, and we’re trying to help, well most of us are, but there’s only so much we can do.
You see, to us, being called gay isn’t a slur. We don’t see anything wrong with being homosexual, and gay is just another word for homosexual.
Gay bashing, however, Like Christian bashing, is a verb, an activity, and like bashing anything, is inherently negative.
And – now here’s where it gets tricky, so try and keep up dear – amongst the contrived and manufactured hyper-masculine culture of the hardcore Right, being called gay, in either sense, IS an insult; because they DO feel there is something wrong with being gay and will overcompensate in weird and hilarious ways to ‘prove’ they are not gay: go hunting for little caged birds, collect LOTS of guns, pick fights with their fathers, even call for criminalization of their own behaviors!
Matt T. said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:09
Remember. Y’all are arguing with a person who once wrote on and defended the idea that only a woman of loose morals would serve her man orange juice concentrate for breakfast (which she’d do every morning), as a real woman of character would squeeze it fresh by hand. She’s also advocated wiping out whole swaths of people who are on the “wrong side”. Just know what sort of person you’re wasting your time with, that’s all.
Metro said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:14
Annie Angel:
Perhaps I can help clear up your confusion. You see, this here is a blog. People rant and air their opinions, unmoderated, informed-or-uninformed, reasonable or nutjob as the case may be. It’s all part of the fun here in the tubes of the internet. And were the Divine Madness to spill her bile anonymously on some comment section somewhere, few if any, would care.
CPAC is supposed to be a serious political event, where the level of discourse is expected to be somewhat higher.
Ann Coulter, disgusting gonk, has a history of spewing hate and murder from all visible orifices whenever she’s allowed a forum.
Knowing this, CPAC apparently felt that it was appropriate a) to give her space outside whatever laughing academy they wheel her off to when they strap her back onto the gurney after she’s allowed to speak, b) laugh with hilarity following a remark that has no place in what is supposed to be a forum of political discourse, c) in what they claim is the finest tradition of their democratic opposition, equivocate, deny, and deride.
In doing so the CPAC blew the credibility of the entire conservative “movement”. And revealed the sordid truth about Coulter and conservatism:
She isn’t a rightwing whack job, bellowing hoarsely from the fringes. She’s the mainstream poster child for what is laughably described as American conservatism.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:14
Billy,
So if you call Edwards a faggot, is it an insult????
Any time you use a stereotype to slur someone, to insult someone, you are the one deciding it is an insult and you are insulting an entire group of people who have nothing to do with anything by doing it.
Are you really that stupid?
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:16
Ann Coulter is disgusting, but so is everyone else who uses stereotypying as an insult. Blog or no blog.
I don’t know why anyone even gives Coutler bandwidth. It’s what she wants.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:17
And um…..are you calling everyone here leftwing whackjobs???
Metro said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:19
No, Annie. It’s what they want.
The people who hijacked the good name of conservatism at the end of the Clinton years were granted a license by the Supreme Court in 2000 to behave as they wished and damn the consequences.
I hope that between this and the Scooter Libby trial, true conservatives will begin fleeing this scuttled dinghy, hold their noses and vote for a Deomcrat until their party cures its cancers.
Metro said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:21
Sorry–”Democrat”.
And no, I haven’t called everyone that, ever. Unlike, for example, Ann Coulter, I avoid generalization. Not that I’m above personal insult.
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:26
So if you call Edwards a faggot, is it an insult????
Faggot is always derogatory. I suppose it can be used ironically in some situations, but all the same it always indicates negativity.
Gay is the commonly used word for homosexual. It is not an inherantly negative term.
So, which of the regulars called Bush a fag? I recall someone comparing Bush’s apparent gayness with Edward’s, but only after some right wing jackass tried to explain that Edwards really is gay, or something like that.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:32
Billy, you are such a Jew. Just because you respect a group does not mean you can use the name of that group as a derogatory term with which to refer to others. It is simple logic.
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:44
No shit dumbass. My point was nobody here used it in that fashion. However, for your average Publican “gay” and the f-bomb are synonymous, so I can understand why you’d be confused.
allium122 said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:45
If some one touted as one of the best, most articulate and entertaining spokespeople for the conservative movement is someone who uses recess insults as the high water level of her comments, they really are exposing the limits of their reasoning.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:47
If you are using the tern gay as an insult, then you must think it is a negative term.
Even if you yourself love homosexuals, it doesn’t change the fact that you are attempting to use their sexuality as a slur.
Is that so hard to grasp? Seriously?
J— said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:50
Now I ain’t saying there should be any required reading around here, but a quick perusal of this Sadly, No! thread from April 2006 may be of use to some involved in the current discussion.
Yeah, but you’re waaay too chunky to get on the debate team, Annie Blank.
Yes, but on the internet, nobody knows you’re too chunky for the debate team.
grampaw said,
March 8, 2007 at 0:55
Good lord, what would possess a man to sniff out and read thirty-one wingnut responses to a single wingnut gaffe, and then summarize every last one of them?
I can see doing maybe half a dozen for the sake of illustration, but this is borderline OCD behavior, Retardo. It’s also unreadable— I didn’t make it past the first four or so, and just skipped down to the conclusion (which seems comparatively sane).
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:03
“My point was nobody here used it in that fashion.”
Ummm, everybody here uses it in that fashion, actually.
You are totally teh ghey.
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:12
You got me Annie. You’ve exposed my rampant homophobia for all to see. Well, not mine, since I never used gay as a slur. Funny, I don’t recall anyone else here doing so either! Hmm, it is a mystery! Master debatrix that you are, I don’t doubt you’ll have examples of such homophobia, as written by our SN hosts or a regular commenter.
I await with… apathy actually.
Good lord, what would possess a man to sniff out and read thirty-one wingnut responses to a single wingnut gaffe, and then summarize every last one of them?
I dunno, maybe he wanted to know what they had say? What they’re thinking? They’re not hard to “sniff out”, they’re the public voice of wingnuttery is all.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:28
Jrod, don’t be a goof. I was called, Mannie right on this thread!
man coulter, and mannieangel. no diff.
and
(and I was referring to MannieAngel in the earlier comment, not a different brad – unless, of course, a different brad is a bitch with bathing issues)
but really, Mannie – for YOU to use the word ‘hypocrit’ when referring to others – have you no concept of cognitive dissonance? my irony claxon is deafening.
Both comments by prozacula. So um, what’s the insult there? That I’m a transexual right? Well who the hell is that meant to insult, since I know I’m not one?
You’re a bunch of morans.
John S. said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:31
Annie & Limpy-
You two are spoof extraordinaires!
Keep up the good work…we all can use a good laugh every now and then.
billy pilgrim said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:34
You are totally teh ghey.
[pee-wee]I know you are but what am I? [/pee-wee]
I guess that’s what we’ve come to.
anniepie, one more try: first of all, I have never called anyone a faggot. It’s not a word I use.
But the poster used the word gay, not as a slur, but BECAUSE even as a straightforward descriptor, it drives the Republicans nutty. I don’t think any of the gays round these parts took it as a slur (if one did, feel free to correct me).
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:38
If ONE did??? One gay???
Holy shit, you’re fuxxored.
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:40
Oh, we’re talking about tranny jokes now? I don’t care for ‘em much.
Keep looking for that use of “gay” as a slur, though. As you and Limpy said, it’s used by everyone all the time around these parts, so it couldn’t take too long to find one.
BDIII said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:41
Annie Granny Panties,
If your cortex can’t process the difference in context between what some schlubs write on a website and what a GOP luminary utters on a very big stage… well, there may be no hope for ya.
Either up the meds or phone Kevorkian. Unless yr just playing at obtuse. In which case, carry on, cuz everyone seems to be enjoying you.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:42
http://online.logcabin.org/
So there are no gay Republicans??????????????
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:44
So if I call my neighbor a nigger all over the block it’s ok. Just as long as I don’t do it on a stage.
?????????????
BDIII said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:49
Give it a try!
Let us know how it goes.
Qetesh said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:51
So there are no gay Republicans??????????????
Hey, annie said the g-word! annie said the g-word! Slur! Slurslurslurslur!
Oh, and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:52
http://sadlyno.com/archives/5247.html#comment-141117
This is what I was referring to upthread.
“Now I am in favor of gay rights and opposed to disparaging homosexuality, but I have to say this: George W. Bush is, by far, the gayest president we’ve ever had. Holding hands with that Saudi Arabian guy (don’t remember his name)? Gay! Playing dress-up as a fighter piolet and a cowboy? Gay! Why do you tink he’s so fond of Jeff Ganon and Samuel Alito (both of whom are gay)? Gay!
You all know I’m right.”
Bold mine.
Qetesh said,
March 8, 2007 at 1:57
I feel so much better now. It’s like hacking up a really big furball, doing all those exclamation marks. Y’all should try it.
Hey, annie, here’s my attempt. “Gay” is a word used interchangeably with “homosexual”, right? Both of them refer to men bonking men and/or women bonking women, right?
So if I say “I think Ferdinand is gay”, that means I’m saying I think he bonks men. Are you with me still, canniecangel?
In a similar way, if I say “I think Ferdinand is vego”, that means I think he’s vegetarian. Try to keep up, dannie.
However, if I say, “I think Ferdinand is a crazy lentil-sucking weirdo”, you might take that to mean that (a) I think Ferdinand is vegetarian, and (b) I think being a vegetarian is A Bad Thing.
Can you see the difference, fannie? Please say yes. It would mean so much to me to be able to make a dent in your wilful ignorance.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:03
Looking at what Miss Annie quoted, basically it is ok for Democrats to call Republican leaders gay because they like gays, but it is not ok for Republicans to call Democratic leaders gay because they don’t like gays?
But if President Bush is gay then wouldn’t that mean he likes gays? So then it would be ok for people who like the gay President Bush to refer to other people as gay, thus there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what Ann Coulter said.
Right?
Do you people even know what you are saying anymore?
BDIII said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:16
shrimpy and Grannie-
Well, it goes right back to context now, doesn’t it?
Weak.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:19
But if President Bush is gay then wouldn’t that mean he likes gays?
*sigh*
Sadly, no. A bit of light reading.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:21
And context means you said it is ok so that makes it ok?
g said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:25
I think it’s sweet how Shoelimpy gallantly sweeps in to defend annie’s honor. Isn’t he just the nicest boyfriend a Christian girl could have?
What a couple of cute kids! I hope we get invited to the wedding!
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:26
Ah yes, I figured you’d bring up that comment.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but Publicans and the right-wing in general tend to put a lot of value in being NOTGAYNOTGAYNOTGAAAAY!!11
Therefore, it’s ironic to note that Bush, adored by millions as a paragon of Straight Manly Maleness, does many things which are stereotypically considered gay. One example would be the time he went to Saudi Arabia, kissed a dude on the mouth, and they then slowly walked hand-in-hand. Another example is his propensity for dressing up in macho costumes, much like noted homosexuals the Village People. Perhaps the most ironic of these ironies is Bush’s odd relationship with known gay whore Jeff Gannon. This would all seem to indicate that Bush is perhaps not as straight as Publicans believe! ha-ha the end.
See, the joke is the irony. It reveals Publican hypocrisy in humorous fashion, most pointedly toward the end, when the word “gay” is repeated several times in an obvious parody of wingnut hyperbole. The joke is impossible without using the word “gay” or a synonym. Please try again, we’re looking for a deliberate use of the word as a slur.
BDIII said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:31
They should have a morning radio show.
And once again, if you can’t discern why it it’s a far greater deal if ann coulter waxes offensive at an official Party Rally as a guest of honor, than if a nicknamed nobody tosses off an apparently half-serious comment on an ever-longer thread…. you’ve got some serious self-examination to get started on.
Godspeed on your journey of inner discovery.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:31
Wow, keep talking Jrod. You make yourself look stoopider every time you open your mouth.
Metro said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:33
Anne Coulter noteably did not address Edwards as “gay”, which would, since it might imply a degree of respect not normally present, have weirded out her audience.
She called him a faggot. A word as charged as pronouncing “African-American” with two g’s.
The tone of the comment, on the other hand, was respectful and thoughtful. Unless you consider that being asessed as gay for a sampling of your behaviours (as Coulter did to Clinton and Gore) is insulting somehow. Or was that another example of her famous sense of humour?
And whatever the commentor wrote, I notice the comment did not contain the word “faggot”.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:35
Man Coulter is an accepted bash at Ann Coulter. I’ve also heard Man Hands. And tranny.
So you can make gay slurs at her, but she does it and it’s wrong.
It’s wrong on both sides, is what I’m saying. But you think it’s ok if you do it.
I bet you don’t share your crayons, either.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:37
So if I call you a Jew it’s ok, but a Kike and it’s bad? If your Muslim??
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:44
So that means you’re giving up the hunt? So soon? Surely somewhere in the archives is an example of Brad or Gavin using the word “gay” or “queer” or “faggot” as an insult. Boy oh boy would I look stupid if you found that!
Sniper said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:45
It isn’t. Evilese is his mother tongue (forked, natch.)
Sadly enough, Frum’s late mother was one of Canada’s most respected journalists, and a liberal, at least according to the facts. Interesting that he spends so much time whining about women just like his mother.
Qetesh said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:46
Hey, pannie, I notice you didn’t respond to my comment. Was it too hard for oo to unnerstan’? Did oo tax oo widdle bwain twying to wead da words?
Please try, kannie.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:46
jrod, perhaps you don’t pay attention much, but sadly no-ites have often used words such as “gay” “faggot” etc., etc., as slurs against many. Both Miss Annie and myself have been called such numerous times on this board. Considering that neither Miss Annie nor myself are anti-homosexual in any fashion, it is obvious that your so-called “irony” had nothing to do with these statements. Then, we must ask, what was it? We can only safely reason that these statements were made because it is the believe of those making the statements that “gay” and “faggot” and the like are good terms to use against those whom they don’t like: ie they are good derogatory slurs. I use Miss Annie and myself as examples since these are incidents in which I was personally involved in, however I can assure you there are many others.
Being as you are a person who is seemingly capable of navigating posts on a blog, I recommend you seek them out for yourself. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go digging through comment threads, if you had been around more you would have no doubt seen them for yourself firsthand.
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:48
What word should we use instead of Jew? Child of Israel maybe?
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:48
I linked to the post I referenced and showed you examples on this thread.
You already look stoopid enough to suit me.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:49
Sorry Qetesh, here’s my response….
You’re an idiot.
BDIII said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:53
When these unnamed “sadly no-ites” get invited as a red-carpet speaker at a big ticket Dem event and somewhere in their lauded speech refer to, say, Condoleeza as, maybe, a jigaboo, then, and only then, will you limp little comparison mean anything a’tall.
But please don’t stop on logic’s account.
Mrs. Peel said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:55
Hey Tranny (M)Annie. When I hear a Dem do it from a national stage, I may consider your idiotic apples-and-oranges pissing contest.
Oh, and sweetie. Look up the Barney Frank rule and memorize it. Any closet case wingnut who’s actively into gay bashing is subject to being publicly humiliated in the way he most fears. By exposure and active ridicule.
Now go fluff you duff – hypocrite.
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:57
*yawn* Your examples are as weak as OJ from concentrate. Ah well, feeding time is over.
annieangel said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:57
Why does it have to be from a national stage, whatever that is?
Why does personal responsibility mean nothing to you?
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:58
Another example right here: Mrs. Peel said,
March 8, 2007 at 2:55
“Hey Tranny (M)Annie.”
I have to say I fail to see the irony here.
BDIII said,
March 8, 2007 at 3:04
gargANNIEtuan –
I don’t swim in your toilet, don’t pee in my pool.
Simple enough?
Ann Althouse said,
March 8, 2007 at 3:29
great post, HTML
g said,
March 8, 2007 at 3:42
Oh, today he’s the pompous shoelimpy.
I thought we were going to get the other one. My bad.
judeanpeoplesfront said,
March 8, 2007 at 3:48
wow. i just linked to this post from SALON. HTML gets credit for selflessly swimming through the sewers of riechtardostan….carefully…wait…
wait..
ann?
i knew that link from greenwald would send the smarties over here!
shape up annie! no references to our fat jokes! open another box of wine and start producing!
DocAmazing said,
March 8, 2007 at 4:06
Jesus, that’s a lot of pie right there.
Anne Laurie said,
March 8, 2007 at 4:27
Honestly, why don’t they just insist that all presidential candidates play elimination rounds of the biscuit game? Losers have to eat the biscuit and withdraw their nomination, so their absolute girliness and humiliation is visible to all.
My dad had a riff concerning over-long presidential campaigns: Change the Constitution to make it a one-term, six-year job. After the primaries, the successful contenders get turned loose in an arena, naked, armed only with forks.
Last one left alive gets to be President.
To kick off the festivities, the former President is crucified (upside down, to avoid any stink of blasphemy).
The cost of arena tickets, and of the television rights, are earmarked for projects like universal health insurance, free college educations, and other social projects condemned as “too expensive” by the wealthiest, most powerful citizens of this (formerly) wealthy, powerful nation.
I myself would pay cash money to watch the Republican version of this event. McCain has the experience, and Giuliani the guile. Romney has the age advantage, but the first injury done to his beautiful, beautiful hair would probably put him out of competition.
And people: PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. I don’t mind arguing with — well, mocking mostly — the occasional misinformed Reichtard who stumbles over here for another opportunity to have his head handed to him*, but the Pie People should not be encouraged. It’s only going to ruin our reputation with behavioral caregivers and the parents of homeschoolers. If you find that the stains on the carpet are raising your blood pressure, remember that’s why pie was invented.
*Hello, Gary!
richard said,
March 8, 2007 at 4:54
(See Dean Barnett, at Monday, March 05, 2007
CPAC – Then and Now)
Yes, Dean Barnett (over at Hugh Hewitt’s site, he is a co-blogger there) to his great credit, wrote a simple, honest PAIR of posts stating Coulter was wrong. His commenters chewed him up. I commented o ver there (rsoliza) – daring a response, nope, none last time I looked.
“She’s a hero, stop making a big deal out of all of this, don’t be a wimp and cater to PC talk, her 1st amendment, the Left is worse, stop beating a dead horse,” all the typical arguements. Depressing.
Mo's Bike Shop said,
March 8, 2007 at 5:51
Numerous:
Two
Shoe may have been called gay, but I’m sure he hasn’t been referred to as a math geek.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 8, 2007 at 6:13
On the bright side, Captain Ed did say this in the post HTML linked above:
First, criticizing Coulter’s use of the word “faggot” is not a suppression of free speech; it is an exercise of free speech. We’re not advocating her arrest for using the word. We’re just saying it was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful.
One of the most lucid and principled statements I’ve read on a right-leaning blog in many, many . . . well, ever, actually. It was nice.
Sorry to go all pollyanna, everyone. Don’t mind me. Back to the pie.
EdsAppliance said,
March 8, 2007 at 6:28
It’s like Thanksgiving dinner around here. I’ll have a slice of pecan *and* pumpkin.
And then a nap.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
March 8, 2007 at 7:09
I take it Mo never won no spelling bees
Jrod said,
March 8, 2007 at 7:51
Let’s check some quotes from the first result on your Google search, Limp.
Now, since you are more or less anonymous on here, I think you are a troll, judging from the fact you like anal sex, I think you are a gay male troll.
That’s about it. Their site is ultragay. And not in the campy good way.
Trolls are teh gay.
So which of our bigoted regulars made those statements? Why, it was annieangel!
See for yourself.
HTML Mencken said,
March 8, 2007 at 8:33
You know, I purposely phrased this post to guard against — and simultaneously if subtlely give the finger to — the continual PC sniping one can see linked in our referral logs (not that we can go over there anymore and say anything about such sniping, no, because that is *their turf!!!*), and what happens?! Annie and Limpy do it for them, less skillfully but more hilariously.
What matters are Coulter’s and indeed the whole rightwing’s sentiments, not the *word* ‘faggot’, which if banned from the lexicon would supposedly solve homophobia now and forever. But I totally expect an explicit formula stated that ‘liberal’s fat joke = Coulter’s smear’ any minute now, if I haven’t missed it already.
Anne Laurie said,
March 8, 2007 at 8:50
HTML, maybe we could give every troll its own fork, and let the sole survivor be our mascot.
HTML Mencken said,
March 8, 2007 at 8:56
I like that, Anne Laurie. But it also scares me!
John S. said,
March 8, 2007 at 13:39
Man Coulter is an accepted bash at Ann Coulter. I’ve also heard Man Hands. And tranny.
So you can make gay slurs at her, but she does it and it’s wrong.
Minor point of fact: Implying that a woman is really a man is not a gay slur. All the “slurs” you mention that are used against Coulter have nothing to do with her sexuality – they have to do with her gender. Nobody means to ridicule Ann for being gay, rather, they mean to ridicule her for her appearance and the hint of an Adam’s apple that she seems to have. Not that I condone the namecalling, but at least you could get your analogy straight.
Qetesh the Shaved Abyssinian said,
March 8, 2007 at 14:25
Anne Laurie: your dad is way cool. :-) I particularly like the ‘forks’ touch: adds a soupcon of ludicrousness (ludicrity? ludicrelliousness?) to the battle the the death.
And as for me, I’d sell my house and fly to the US just to watch. Man, imagine the fun, although I think they’d have to do it before the primaries, and include the VP contenders as well, to give it that “Saturday night round closing time at the local” feel.
Cheney would be safe, of course, because he keeps his heart in a box in a fortress on top of a mountain. Dennis Kucinich might be short enough to run around and slash the achilles tendons of the favourites, so they get wiped out by others early on, reducing the field. All the blokes would probably gang up on Hillary, and Giuliani would be busy trying to hold a photo op standing on the pile of bodies.
Liebermann would be in there, but no one would ally with him, because they know he’d turn on them immediately afterwards. People might ally with McCain, only to find he turned on them too. Romney would get the vapours as soon as a spurt of blood drenched his coiffure, they’d all be afraid of Obama so they’d rush him, and Howard Dean would make his opponents kill themselves through stupidity.
How’s that for a scenario? I love the idea of it all happening with forks and nakedness. For extra fun they could be greased, so grappling wouldn’t work, and you’d get lots of laughs from the ‘pig-wrestling’ scenes.
As for killing the last guy, well, couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. And the English used to do it, after all. Not the fork-armed free-for-all, but the killing the last guy. At least the Celts did: the Norse killed everyone else, and the Normans kept them because they needed servants.
Qetesh the Shaved Abyssinian said,
March 8, 2007 at 14:28
Oh, and Anne, in my excitement at the gladiatorial spectacle that is our democratic right as a subject peoples, I forgot to concur with you about The Pie People. Apparently, use of logic is deemed idiocy in Pieland, so perhaps they’ll have allergic reactions and go away. Let’s hope so: they do so lower the tone of the place.
Sadly, No! » Kaus Stands By His Ann said,
March 8, 2007 at 15:48
[...] like the rest of his fellow-travelers, ain’t about to give up on Ann [...]
prozacula said,
March 8, 2007 at 17:34
oh annie, you stupid wench!
I called you Mannie Angel, because it’s FUNNY, it wasn’t a transsexual joke. I never make transsexual jokes.
I didn’t call you ButchDyke, which would be somewhat like what Mann Coulter did, minus the fact that she was speaking in a public forum as a representative for all conservatives.
No, I just call you what you are: stupid bitch, stinking, washed up old hag, hypocritical fake Christian, annoying wrinkled troll, etc, etc.
tigrismus said,
March 8, 2007 at 19:53
So if I call you a Jew it’s ok, but a Kike and it’s bad?
Are you kidding here? If I call you a women it’s ok, but a cunt and it’s bad, right? White is ok, peckerwood is bad, black is ok, nigger is bad … you really can’t NOT see there’s a difference.
If your[sic] Muslim??
Wait, I thought you and your shadow thought context didn’t matter, bad is bad and a slur is a slur? Are you saying there might be a difference when a member of a group purported to hate another group uses a term than when someone who doesn’t hate does? Or a member of the hated group itself? So it might be a teensy weensy bit different if someone who is on the record as thinking homosexuality is narcissistic and a gateway to pedophilia calls someone a “faggot” versus if someone who’s pro-gay rights says they think Bush seems to enjoy stroking bald heads more than one would expect in a straight man?
Karl Rove II said,
March 8, 2007 at 20:06
Wow, that was a lot of pie…time to hose down Limpy and Analannie.
Roger That said,
March 8, 2007 at 20:33
Annieangel, everyones favorite phony Christian.
Annie, go back to your day job of shooting ping pong balls out of your cooter.
J— said,
March 8, 2007 at 20:50
So, do you think you’re ready to make The Great Pie?
rick said,
March 9, 2007 at 6:30
The best thing I’ve read about Coulter’s use of “faggot” is at CitizenBoo’s blog, where she describes their torrid lesbian affair.
Sadly, No! » Bad Behavior said,
March 16, 2007 at 3:28
[...] is Barack Obama buying into the fascist, ‘Cult of Teh Macho‘ smear on John Edwards: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) slipped in a compliment — of sorts — [...]
Sadly, No! » Super Wingnut: Rich Lowry said,
August 16, 2007 at 19:26
[...] basically a Coulter, too. Case in point is when Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, and Lowry was right there to defend her from cruel, unfair lefties. He might as well have been defending himself. And in a [...]
Sadly, No! » Super Wingnut: Rich Lowry (Part II) said,
August 27, 2007 at 16:34
[...] basically a Coulter, too. Case in point is when Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, and Lowry was right there to defend her from cruel, unfair lefties. He might as well have been defending himself. And in a [...]
Various matters said,
August 17, 2010 at 20:21
[...] This post from HTML Mencken should put an end to the brewing notion that any substantial part of the [...]
Various matters - Salon.com said,
May 21, 2011 at 9:11
[...] This post from HTML Mencken should put an end to the brewing notion that any substantial part of the [...]
mayommoca said,
November 6, 2012 at 16:58
Majdme uggs on sale Eybske uggs on sale Zxamgm uggs on sale Doairu http://amazingbootsstore.us/