Stupid bitch

Why is this "woman" allowed to roam the earth?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/02/coulter-cpac-i-would-comment-on-john-edwards-but-it-turns-out-you-have-to-go-into-rehab-if-you-use-the-word-%e2%80%98faggot%e2%80%99/


Edwards Campaign Responds to Coulter Calling Him 'Faggot'
Ann Coulter

By E&P Staff

Published: March 03, 2007 6:05 PM ET updated Saturday

NEW YORK In recent years she has suggested that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have or may have homosexual tendencies. Now columnist/author Ann Coulter has targeted former senator (and current candidate for president) John Edwards.

Edwards responded on Saturday with a statement: "Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large. I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it."

The Edwards campaign also responded by trying to fundraise some "Coulter Cash."

Speaking Friday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Coulter closed her remarks with: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I -- so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Audience members appeared startled, then many clapped, and she opened the floor to questions. The event was carried on C-SPAN. Many newspapers, including The New York Times, covered the event but failed to mention the Coulter slur at first.

But David Bonior, the former congressman and now Edwards campaign manager, responded in an email to supporters, "This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us. And now that it's begun, we have a choice: Do we sit back, or do we fight back?

"I say we fight. Help us raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign. I just threw in 100 bucks. Will you join me?

"Coulter's attack was no accident. It happened on national television at one of the year's biggest conservative conferences....If we can raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week, we can show that bigotry will only backfire on those who use it."

Democratic Party chief Howard Dean weighed in later: "There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans -- including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today -- should denounce her hateful remarks."

On Saturday, Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Romney said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect."

“The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for McCain.

The remarks also drew disapproval from some popular conservative commentators. Ed Morrissey on his Captain's Quarters blog wrote: "Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann."

Michelle Malkin expressed disapproval, and at her Hot Air site regular contributor "Bryan" wrote: "I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. Last year it was 'raghead.' This year it’s calling John Edwards a 'faggot.' Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. Thanks, Ann."

Vice President Cheney addressed the group on Thursday. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney appeared before her on Friday. Sen. John McCain skipped the event.

The New York Times' Adam Nagourney failed to mention the crack about Edwards, in observing Saturday in the paper: "The conference drew thousands of attendees, many of whom waited in a long line out the door for a late-afternoon appearance by Ann Coulter, the conservative author and commentator."

Later Saturday he posted a blog item at www.nytimes.com that did discuss the Coulter crack. For Sunday's paper he elicited this reply from Coulter: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

The Washington Post covered the conference but did not mention Coulter at all in its news report. Neither did the Associated Press, which also attended. UPI did mention the "faggot" quote in its report.

The Los Angeles Times on Saturday quoted Coulter and even put the controversy in a headline. It closed the article: "A Giuliani spokeswoman said she had not heard the speech, and a Romney spokesman did not return calls late Friday."

The Post's Dana Milbank, in a column for the Saturday paper, observed: "Ann Coulter used an anti-gay slur to describe John Edwards (the line drew applause) and asked: 'Did Al Gore actually swallow Michael Moore?' When a questioner asked Coulter why she praises marriage but broke off so many engagements, she responded by calling the questioner ugly."

Coulter's column is distributed by Universal.

I wonder if someday she'll get audited and it'll turn out she's been on the Democratic payroll this whole time to help stir up campaign contributions.

She is an idiot and a joke, not worth the worry.

I'd like to put her and Michael Moore in a cage and let them fight to the death...both are not overly useful for their particular side.

rkzenrage;320314 wrote:

She is an idiot and a joke, not worth the worry.

There are two reasons to care about her. Not for herself (there's nothing so stupid that there isn't someone who will say it, and she's just another of those someones), but for what others do with her.

First, there is nothing she can say that will cause her to be dropped from the cable channels and newspapers that tout her as a conservative commentator. This is an indicator of the level of political discourse.

Second, she lays the groundwork for the next wave of conservative commentators to say what she was saying, but in a more "reasonable" tone. Just wait and see - they'll be calling Edwards effeminate and wishy washy pretty soon.

First of all, she is [COLOR="Red"]not [/COLOR]conservative. http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13475
Secondly, good, showing that they are mean-spirited assholes is a good thing.

She is conservative like Mormons are Christian. And the conservative movement looks a lot like Utah at the moment, to further the analogy.

Mormons are Christian, they worship Christ, therefore they are Christian.
There is nothing conservative about the new Republicans or Coulter's message. They want a theocratic police state.

rkzenrage;320428 wrote:

Mormons are Christian, they worship Christ, therefore they are Christian.

Yeah, but they also believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Seventh Day Adventists believe that Ellen G. White was a prophet.

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]personally I think she was clinically insane[/COLOR]

Brianna;320433 wrote:

Yeah, but they also believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

So, a lot of Christians believe in the Rapture, equally nuts.

But Mormons are on the fringe...not quite as out there as the snakecharmers, but still viewed with hefty skepticism. Hey...whatever works.

I think we might be ready for a black or a woman president...barely. But a Mormon or a Jewish one? No...not yet.

rkzenrage;320428 wrote:

Mormons are Christian, they worship Christ, therefore they are Christian.

And Coulter shares some views with conservatives, therefore she is conservative.

Of course, for Mormons, Jesus is one of two sons of the god of Earth, who is just one of many gods, and a good Mormon man can become a god of his own planet when he dies. But hey, Jesus is in there, so they're Christian. Likewise, Coulter likes the low taxes, so she's conservative.

I am curious... what has she stated that is conservative?
I've never heard her say one thing that was conservative. She advocates sweeping federal taxes, nothing conservative there.
I believe in the separation of church and state, someone's religion has nothing to do with their politics. Mormon, Buddhist, Catholic, I don't care what his religion is as long as their stand on the issues jives with mine.

Anyone notice that CNN didn't pick the most flattering photograph of her for this story?

Braaaaains...braaaains...

Kitsune;320748 wrote:

Anyone notice that CNN didn't pick the most flattering photograph of her for this story?

Braaaaains...braaaains...

She's a MAN baby!!!

Adam's apple.

rkzenrage;320752 wrote:

Adam's apple.

looks more like Adams' Watermellon.

Man or woman, she needs her roots done.

That woman was rode hard and put away wet.

rkzenrage;320752 wrote:

Adam's apple.

Sheldonrs;320753 wrote:

looks more like Adams' Watermellon.

my take on her for new folks who haven't seen it

UT, warn me before you post something that's going to make me laugh that loud at work, again.

Coffee was snorted!

:lol2:

eeek

Shawnee123;320793 wrote:

eeek

If I wasn't gay before, I AM NOW!!!!

I think Ann Coulter is to be admired. After all, she is one of the few on the Right who isn't afraid to verbalize what pretty much all the rest of her compatriots are thinking. You don't think people who are in the least interested in equal rights for all, inclusiveness, tolerance and simple human decency go around trying to deprive people of their human rights, do you?

No, Ann just says in public what all the rest of them say in private...because they *are* reprehensible, as opposed to those whom they target and call deviant, sick, misguided or reprehensible, but who are, by and large, just trying to get through life and live it the best ways they can.

And don't forget...targeting minorities is a time-proven method of political success, and consolidation of power and wealth. I mean, hey...they're *still* trying to figure out how to give back stolen money and artworks to the Jews some sixty-five years after they began being pillaged.

That woman was rode hard and put away wet.

Haha. That made me chuckle:)

This woman is a witch. But I agree with Elspode, she is verbalising what many others on the right think and say in private. It's a little like over here, we have the Conservative Party and various other smaller right-wing parties, most of whose members would in public condemn the hate-mongering of the BNP (Neo-fascists) and come election night they're all talking about how any result that keeps the neo-nazis out is a good result.....but if you look a little closer, you find a lot of common ground and occassional visits to each others' fundraisers.

If we have any doubt that those on the right of the Republican party share Coulter's unpleasant attitudes, just check out how many times one of them has been caught out in a racist/homophobic/anti-semitic remark, on camera or tape.

DanaC;320830 wrote:

If we have any doubt that those on the right of the Republican party share Coulter's unpleasant attitudes, just check out how many times one of them has been caught out in a racist/homophobic/anti-semitic remark, on camera or tape.

Even better, just check out where Coulter is invited to speak.

Here she is with current Republican media darling and gay porn star Cpl. Matt Sanchez.

snip~ his "11-inch uncut monster cock" earned him a devoted following.

11 inches? No wonder he's getting second billing to Coulter, she's got him beat. :rolleyes:

So this is the very best the anti-Coulter people on the Cellar can come up with?

You people should be reading Coulter, for the improvement of your IQ -- and either as an exercise of the courage of the convictions you say you have -- you tend to fall down in testing them with me, retreating with excuses -- or as an epiphany that changes the whole direction of your personal philosophy of life. Independence of thought is nice, don't you think? Is there any here in this groupthink?

She got the Democratic Party's number rather thoroughly in her last couple of books, and the best response that lot can come up with is that they find her abrasive, and utter outraged shrieks that they are impugned and defamed. Hey, gang, innocence doesn't have to utter outraged shrieks, but guilt generally does.

Sheldonrs would have to turn conservative before he could fellate Ann Coulter, though -- and she'd have to stop off at Good Vibrations.

So this is the very best the anti-Coulter people on the Cellar can come up with?

when we work harder at it you don't even respond

Have you stopped beating your wife, UG? :right:

Urbane Guerrilla;321592 wrote:

You people should be reading Coulter, for the improvement of your IQ -- and either as an exercise of the courage of the convictions you say you have -- you tend to fall down in testing them with me, retreating with excuses -- or as an epiphany that changes the whole direction of your personal philosophy of life. Independence of thought is nice, don't you think? Is there any here in this groupthink?

She got the Democratic Party's number rather thoroughly in her last couple of books, and the best response that lot can come up with is that they find her abrasive, and utter outraged shrieks that they are impugned and defamed. Hey, gang, innocence doesn't have to utter outraged shrieks, but guilt generally does.

If she does have anything useful to say, I don't think she's able to communicate it very well--she's at the very least abrasive, and an attention whore most of all. Reading her crap would just be a waste of time.

A far more intelligent, less sensational view from the far right is Christopher Hitchens' writings. I don't agree him either, but I respect him. He doesn't stoop to smartass insults (when he's trying to make serious points, anyway).

Urbane Guerrilla;321592 wrote:

Sheldonrs would have to turn conservative before he could fellate Ann Coulter, though -- and she'd have to stop off at Good Vibrations.

I have "fellated" every type of guy you can imagine. Old, young, fat, thin, beautiful and not so much. But I wouldn't touch "her" if she ejaculated hundred dollar bills.

Urbane Guerrilla;321592 wrote:

So this is the very best the anti-Coulter people on the Cellar can come up with?

Wear diapers (a nappy). She will love you even better.

bluecuracao;322936 wrote:

A far more intelligent, less sensational view from the far right is Christopher Hitchens' writings. I don't agree him either, but I respect him. He doesn't stoop to smartass insults (when he's trying to make serious points, anyway).

Actually he does, occasionally, although he's so good at it you have to give him points. I disagree with most of his positions, but I find him articulate and worth listening to.

Coulter couldn't outargue a ten-year-old. Her basic repertoire always seems to end in the equivalent of "so's your old man". Hitchens stays focused while Coulter jumps the tracks more often than Casey Jones.

xoxoxoBruce;322923 wrote:

Have you stopped beating your wife, UG? :right:

The short and quite correct answer to that question, Bruce, is No. Think about it.

The longer and funnier answer is "I can't accurately respond to the question until I ascertain if we're discussing chess, or tennis." Try it using a WFB Ivy-League delivery.

(William F. Buckley, for the non-fans)

And guys, calling Ann Coulter names does not constitute refutation, nor does refusing to read her. Are you then doing any better than you say she is? Really?

She reaps what she sows. If her real objective was to be taken seriously, instead of being (in)famous and selling books, I think more of us would be willing to give her the time of day.

Urbane Guerrilla;324037 wrote:

And guys, calling Ann Coulter names does not constitute refutation,

Undertoad;321627 wrote:

when we work harder at it you don't even respond

Why do you imagine that to be a point, HM?

Because calling her names isn't supposed to be a refutation. The refutation is.

Calling her names is casual dismissal of someone who has been adequately refuted already.

It would be, if she had been. That isn't the case, now is it?

Yes, it is.

Yup.

"I came here for an argument!"

no you didn't

Let's not lose sight of the original message:

Ann Coulter = Bitch

Sheldonrs;326895 wrote:

Let's not lose sight of the original message:

Ann Coulter = Bitch

Your equation, while seemingly mathmatically sound, should actually be stated thus:

Ann Coulter > Bitch

Shawnee123;326899 wrote:

Your equation, while seemingly mathmatically sound, should actually be stated thus:

Ann Coulter > Bitch

Ann Coulter = >bitch

Urbane Guerrilla;326813 wrote:

It would be, if she had been. That isn't the case, now is it?

I'll flip it around a bit. Science blogger PZ Meyers has a challenge out.

Like I said, I'm not going to take this trip apart sentence by sentence, even though I could, given enough time and interest. I will suggest instead that if anyone reading this thinks some particular paragraph anywhere in chapters 8-11 [of Godless] is at all competent or accurate in its description of science, send it to me. I couldn't find one. That's where the obligation lies: show me one supportable claim in Coulter's farrago of lies and misleading statements and out-of-context quotes, and we'll discuss it.