quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I don't believe I was sidestepping, Rich, but adding a perspective.

There is ofensive language and then there is offensive language. In this case Coulter's is a notch above merely heated. I am certain if a liberal commentator had used such an epithet at a Democrat rally there would have been solid condemnation as well. Perhaps you have a specific counterexample. So far all I have seen is generalities that apply equally to both sides.

To put things in another perspective, there is only one person, in the article, actually calling for a blanket condemnation of Coulters comments by the R candidates. It's not like the left rose with one voice, demanding the right take back every nasty thing ever said about the Dems. This thread seems to be wanting to inflate the incident not to mention twist it to look one sided.

IMHO.

Z.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

Indeed she does thrive on being offensive and of course she intended to be inflammatory and draw attention to herself.

 

Perhaps she intended to be "outrageously funny"?

However, even accepting your description ... how is that any different from Al Franken?

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I don't believe I was sidestepping, Rich, but adding a perspective.

There is ofensive language and then there is offensive language. In this case Coulter's is a notch above merely heated. I am certain if a liberal commentator had used such an epithet at a Democrat rally there would have been solid condemnation as well. Perhaps you have a specific counterexample. So far all I have seen is generalities that apply equally to both sides.

To put things in another perspective, there is only one person, in the article, actually calling for a blanket condemnation of Coulters comments by the R candidates. It's not like the left rose with one voice, demanding the right take back every nasty thing ever said about the Dems. This thread seems to be wanting to inflate the incident not to mention twist it to look one sided.

IMHO.

Z.

Let me give you an example from the left..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794568/posts

Bill Maher

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

p.s. I will continue to refer to the special education reject elected by Dumbfuckistan as Monkeyboy.  I dont really have much emotional involvement in how this reflects on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I don't believe I was sidestepping, Rich, but adding a perspective.

There is ofensive language and then there is offensive language. In this case Coulter's is a notch above merely heated. I am certain if a liberal commentator had used such an epithet at a Democrat rally there would have been solid condemnation as well. Perhaps you have a specific counterexample. So far all I have seen is generalities that apply equally to both sides.

To put things in another perspective, there is only one person, in the article, actually calling for a blanket condemnation of Coulters comments by the R candidates. It's not like the left rose with one voice, demanding the right take back every nasty thing ever said about the Dems. This thread seems to be wanting to inflate the incident not to mention twist it to look one sided.

IMHO.

Z.

Let me give you an example from the left..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794568/posts

Bill Maher

So, Sternhand4, how do you feel about this example?  Should Bill Maher have his show taken from him everytime he says something inflammatory or controversial?  i don't feel his other show should have been cancelled, let alone this one.  How can he have a program where such issues are openly discussed if he has to fear the thought/language police at every turn?  He's not advocating that someone go assassinate Cheney.  He's merely speaking his mind that, as Cheney is viewed by some to be at least partly responsible for the ongoing deaths in Iraq, perhaps if he wasn't still in charge of that cluster f**k, so many more might not die in the future.  i'm not agreeing with that statement, per se, but it could indeed be a valid point.  Saying something could have a certain impact if done is NOT the same thing as saying it should be done.....i think those on both sides of the ideological fence need to take a deep breath, ratchet it down a few notches, quit being so thin-skinned, and just actually LISTEN to what is being said rather than going into histrionics everytime someone on the "other" side says something they don't totally embrace........JMHO.....slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I don't believe I was sidestepping, Rich, but adding a perspective.

There is ofensive language and then there is offensive language. In this case Coulter's is a notch above merely heated. I am certain if a liberal commentator had used such an epithet at a Democrat rally there would have been solid condemnation as well. Perhaps you have a specific counterexample. So far all I have seen is generalities that apply equally to both sides.

To put things in another perspective, there is only one person, in the article, actually calling for a blanket condemnation of Coulters comments by the R candidates. It's not like the left rose with one voice, demanding the right take back every nasty thing ever said about the Dems. This thread seems to be wanting to inflate the incident not to mention twist it to look one sided.

IMHO.

Z.

Let me give you an example from the left..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794568/posts

Bill Maher

So, Sternhand4, how do you feel about this example?  Should Bill Maher have his show taken from him everytime he says something inflammatory or controversial?  i don't feel his other show should have been cancelled, let alone this one.  How can he have a program where such issues are openly discussed if he has to fear the thought/language police at every turn?  He's not advocating that someone go assassinate Cheney.  He's merely speaking his mind that, as Cheney is viewed by some to be at least partly responsible for the ongoing deaths in Iraq, perhaps if he wasn't still in charge of that cluster f**k, so many more might not die in the future.  i'm not agreeing with that statement, per se, but it could indeed be a valid point.  Saying something could have a certain impact if done is NOT the same thing as saying it should be done.....i think those on both sides of the ideological fence need to take a deep breath, ratchet it down a few notches, quit being so thin-skinned, and just actually LISTEN to what is being said rather than going into histrionics everytime someone on the "other" side says something they don't totally embrace........JMHO.....slave luci

slaveluci, I totally agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I don't believe I was sidestepping, Rich, but adding a perspective.

There is ofensive language and then there is offensive language. In this case Coulter's is a notch above merely heated. I am certain if a liberal commentator had used such an epithet at a Democrat rally there would have been solid condemnation as well. Perhaps you have a specific counterexample. So far all I have seen is generalities that apply equally to both sides.

To put things in another perspective, there is only one person, in the article, actually calling for a blanket condemnation of Coulters comments by the R candidates. It's not like the left rose with one voice, demanding the right take back every nasty thing ever said about the Dems. This thread seems to be wanting to inflate the incident not to mention twist it to look one sided.

IMHO.

Z.

Let me give you an example from the left..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794568/posts

Bill Maher

quote:


Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

• "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much."
  
  • Excerpt which caused most media controversy Godless: The Church of Liberalism June 2006[1][2]

• "[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."
  
  • Fox News; Hannity & Colmes, November 30, 2004.

• "The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet--it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view."
  
  • Oil Good; Democrats bad; October 12, 2000.

• "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
  
  • Fox News; Hannity & Colmes; June 20, 2001.
    
  • (References to Genesis 1:28. See also Dominionism)

• "I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs."
  
  • Exclusive Interview: Coulter Says Book Examines 'Mental Disorder' of Liberalism; June 6, 2006.

• "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
  
  • [7]" September 12, 2001.

• "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
  
  • New York Observer article; August 26, 2002.

• "Of course I regret it. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'"
  
  • rightwingnews.com; June 26, 2003.
    
  • On her (above) statement concerning Timothy McVeigh

• "You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?"
  
  • In response to a student's question: "You don't want the Democrats in power, so does that mean you want a dictatorship?"
    
  • Liberals Are Wrong About Everything; Indiana University, February 23, 2006

• "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens's creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."
  
  • Philander Smith College January 26, 2006 [10]

• "If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have cared. What was stunning when New York was hit was how the rest of America rushed to New York's defense. New Yorkers would have been like, 'It's tough for them; now let's go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows.'"
  
  • [11]; May 17, 2003.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I don't believe I was sidestepping, Rich, but adding a perspective.

There is ofensive language and then there is offensive language. In this case Coulter's is a notch above merely heated. I am certain if a liberal commentator had used such an epithet at a Democrat rally there would have been solid condemnation as well. Perhaps you have a specific counterexample. So far all I have seen is generalities that apply equally to both sides.

To put things in another perspective, there is only one person, in the article, actually calling for a blanket condemnation of Coulters comments by the R candidates. It's not like the left rose with one voice, demanding the right take back every nasty thing ever said about the Dems. This thread seems to be wanting to inflate the incident not to mention twist it to look one sided.

IMHO.

Z.

Let me give you an example from the left..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794568/posts

Bill Maher

So, Sternhand4, how do you feel about this example?  Should Bill Maher have his show taken from him everytime he says something inflammatory or controversial?  i don't feel his other show should have been cancelled, let alone this one.  How can he have a program where such issues are openly discussed if he has to fear the thought/language police at every turn?  He's not advocating that someone go assassinate Cheney.  He's merely speaking his mind that, as Cheney is viewed by some to be at least partly responsible for the ongoing deaths in Iraq, perhaps if he wasn't still in charge of that cluster f**k, so many more might not die in the future.  i'm not agreeing with that statement, per se, but it could indeed be a valid point.  Saying something could have a certain impact if done is NOT the same thing as saying it should be done.....i think those on both sides of the ideological fence need to take a deep breath, ratchet it down a few notches, quit being so thin-skinned, and just actually LISTEN to what is being said rather than going into histrionics everytime someone on the "other" side says something they don't totally embrace........JMHO.....slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

...  Like most derogatory terms, I tend to think such things reflect more poorly on the one using it than on the one insulted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Just a few weeks ago John Edwards had to fire someone on his campaign because on the website they used the term "Christo-fascists." And even though Edwards didn't use the term personally, he still got a lot of heat for it.
The 2 women resigned. They were not fired. I am sure someone from the campaign said to them " your a liability to us" and they chose to bow out.
Edward took heat for having them on staff. If you want to court the christians you cant have your staff insulting them. It would be like having David Duke be your rep to the NAACP.

Ann Coulter is a far-right conservative writer and commentator. She has no links to any political campaign. None of the Republicans has to apologize for anything she says. And yes, she runs her mouth and says a lot of stupid things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

If this is someone you seek to defend...Go ahead....She's a real peach and she speaks for your party....I have read both Coulter and Franken...I just don't see the "HATE" in Franken that lies within this woman...

Why would any party want to be associated with such a woman?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

If this is someone you seek to defend...Go ahead....She's a real peach and she speaks for your party....I have read both Coulter and Franken...I just don't see the "HATE" in Franken that lies within this woman...

Why would any party want to be associated with such a woman?

Because she is funny as hell, and she gets a rise out of blind-ideologue-liberals who can't see that she is just mirroring - in only a small measure - the things that "they" have been saying about the "other side" and getting away with for years and years.

If I fisked the quotes you gave, I could easily give you counter-examples on the "left" that are much, much worse, yet are taken seriously, and without much comment from the "liberal left".

Franken?  You don't see the same crap in his words and writing?  Just look at the titles of his books, domi.  Now there is trash-talking if I've ever seen it.

You see an "up at arms" attack on him for "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar"?  How about "Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell?"

Hell, Coulter could say a lot worse, for a lot longer before she even approached some of the venom and rhetoric that comes out of the "funny" liberal left.

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

As a derogatory term, the word is just ugly.  Like most derogatory terms, I tend to think such things reflect more poorly on the one using it than on the one insulted.

...

p.s. I will continue to refer to the special education reject elected by Dumbfuckistan as Monkeyboy.  I dont really have much emotional involvement in how this reflects on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Just a few weeks ago John Edwards had to fire someone on his campaign because on the website they used the term "Christo-fascists." And even though Edwards didn't use the term personally, he still got a lot of heat for it.

cyberdude,
This is a perfect example of how BOTH sides are too sensitive.  "Christo-fascist" is just as offensive to some as "faggot" is to others and just as uncalled for.  BUT, i personally find it a little scary that heads roll everytime anything "offensive" to anyone is said.  i can understand it a bit better during political campaigns as the candidates are trying to "toe the line" and please everyone just to get elected and then do things that don't please anyone...lol....however, on a day-to-day basis, i find it amazing how overly sensitive folks are on both sides.  There's definitely enough "blame" to go around....slave luci 

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

As a derogatory term, the word is just ugly.  Like most derogatory terms, I tend to think such things reflect more poorly on the one using it than on the one insulted.

...

p.s. I will continue to refer to the special education reject elected by Dumbfuckistan as Monkeyboy.  I dont really have much emotional involvement in how this reflects on me.

Well, I waited a while for him to respond, but it doesn't look like he is going to.  I wanted to open a discussion about this post on several different ways, and give him a chance to explain himself, but it doesn't appear that is going to happen, so lets do a little fisking here, shall we?

The above quoted post is the epitome of what Rich is talking about.  A clear double standard based on your political beliefs.

First, the poster makes a moral declaration about Coulter, and people who use "derogatory terms".  He is saying that Coulter's use of the term "faggot" reflects on her, more than on the person she is talking about.

He says this in a way that is a judgement on all people who use derogatory terms ... but ... but ....

Then he goes on to use the terms "special education reject", "Dumbfuckistan" and "Monkeyboy" to refer to President Bush, the American voters, and President Bush again, with whom he politically disagrees.

His excuses himself from his own moral judgement because he doesn't "really have much emotional involvement in how this reflects on" ... him.

Do you get that?  Basically, he makes a moral judgement for others, but then excuses himself from that same morality ... because he doesn't give a fuck what others may think of him?

He is above it all.  Codes of behavior and morality that he himself espouses, do not bind him.  He condemns others for the very actions he insists are his right to take.  His ability to insult his political opponents is not to be denied.

There is a name for that kind of behavior  - saying one thing, but doing the opposite - but I'm not going to say it.  I don't think I need to.  "A Double Standard" should suffice.

FirmKY