Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (760132)	3/10/2007 7:01:44 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

LOL! who HAS to add her column?? if one cannot find the latest in Coulter's columns, you ain't lookin very hard. and remember, the MSM print press are becoming dinosaurs. Too many other places to get news much quicker.

To: pompsander who wrote (760132)	3/10/2007 7:26:47 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Liberals chasing Ann Coulter with pitchforks and rope in hand By Matt Barber Liberals chasing Ann Coulter with pitchforks and rope in hand Lefty word-watchdogs and their allies in the mainstream media have hurt feelings … again. As per usual, liberals are frothing at the mouth in a fit of very selective, self-righteous indignation over provocative comments made by Ann Coulter and are hunting the conservative firebrand with pitchforks, torches and rope in hand. While addressing an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Friday, Coulter joked in her trademark fashion that, “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.” And the proverbial fan was thusly and most directly hit. Admittedly, Coulter employed unusually abrasive and bombastic language – even for her – to make a point; but ironically, the reaction she’s getting from the left (and from some on the right) would seem to quite precisely demonstrate the apparent thrust of her prickly comments. Perhaps that was part of her intention. Never mind that those in the “gay community” throw the word “faggot” around as a term of endearment for one another as frequently as Hillary Clinton changes her accent and in much the same manner as black “gangsta-rappers” break out the “N-word.” And never mind that the left constantly redefines that which is or is not a “permissible” moniker for those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle (one day “queer” is bad, and the next day “queer” is good. In fact, the latest from the PC police is that it’s now “hateful” to call a homosexual a “homosexual” – go-figure. They prefer that innocuous, cutsie and happy-go-fluffy little term “gay” if you please.) It’s the left defining the terms, mind you. And it’s the left that further identifies who has permission to use those terms. Therefore, it’s only reasonable for them to apply that famous “progressive” double standard to Coulter. After all, she is a “hateful” conservative. Now, don’t misunderstand; Coulter’s comments lacked civility to be sure and were entirely inappropriate. Some compare her use of the word “faggot” to use of the “N-word.” However, it would seem that African-Americans, who have truly experienced grave and systematic injustice over the years while struggling to obtain certain civil rights to which they were denied, might rightfully be offended by such a spurious comparison. Most African-Americans are a little more than annoyed by the fact that the militant homosexual lobby has so artfully hijacked the rhetoric of genuine civil rights. That rhetoric has been cynically misapplied to the homosexual agenda, which includes mandated moral relativism, social androgyny and not just full acceptance, but celebration of a pleasure-based, sexually deviant lifestyle. Equating the black community’s struggle for civil rights to homosexual activists’ struggle for special rights is a disingenuous parallel. By comparison, homosexuality is rooted in disordered, unhealthy and changeable behaviors that have – prior to the onset of social post-modernism – been considered both immoral and repulsive. Being black is rooted in, well, being black. Rather than equating the word “faggot” to the “N-word,” perhaps a more accurate correlation lies between the word “faggot” and other behaviorally derived derogatory terms such as “slut” or “whore.” In referencing an adulterer as a “slut” or a “whore” for that person’s lifestyle choices, one voices disagreement with certain behaviors (infidelity or promiscuity) historically frowned upon by society. But in either case, use of such disparaging words is coarse, unnecessary and counterproductive. One can express legitimate disagreement with lifestyle choices, which run counter to traditional norms and mores of society, without reverting to the use of such nasty language. As for Coulter’s specific comments, she apparently intended a dual connotation. She seemed to either suggest that Edwards is in fact a homosexual (not likely) or that he is somewhat effeminate and/or “wimpy” in terms of his positions on public policy issues – that he politically embodies certain stereotypes associated with homosexuality (probably more likely). Additionally, Coulter was making a clear reference to the recent uproar which ultimately resulted in Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington giving into PC pressure to check into “homophobia rehab” after calling his homosexual co-star T.R. Knight a “faggot.” But to hear the left talk about it, you’d think Coulter had gone so far as to pine for the assassination of the Vice President of United States or something (and, of course, that’s exactly what liberal activist Bill Maher actually did on the same day Coulter made her unfortunate comments. And it should come as little surprise that we’ve heard only the deafening and ever-so-telling clamor of silence from the left on that one. Gotta love that double standard!) So, while making her inflammatory comments, perhaps Coulter – in her own less than glorious way – intended not only to question John Edwards’ political machismo but to suggest that America’s self-appointed thought police stop trying to force those who dare to violate their politically correct word-code into Orwellian, re-education “rehab” camps. When Coulter spoke last Friday, everyone heard the word “faggot.” But if you take her words – abrasive as they were – in their full context, she was apparently just telling the left to back off and “bag it.” chronwatch-america.com

To: pompsander who wrote (760132)	3/10/2007 7:31:43 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769670

Bill Maher Says Republicans ‘Love Ronald Reagan in a Way That’s Just Gay’ Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 10, 2007 - 01:59. Last week, the media got themselves into quite a lather over Ann Coulter making a joke about Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards. Do you think the same “delicate” press will be as close to offended by a major cable personality suggesting that Republicans “love Ronald Reagan in a way that’s just gay?” On Friday’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher was discussing how various Republicans like to “dress up” in assorted costumes, and quickly moved into a diatribe about one of our nation's favorite presidents that would offend most Americans regardless of what side of the aisle they were on newsbusters.org

To: pompsander who wrote (760132)	3/10/2007 11:05:05 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

While I would agree that Ann's comment was inappropriate....the level of outrage seems excessive given what we have seen Bush, Cheney et al. called in the press, etc....perhaps it would seem more credible to me if there was someone on the left taking issue with the irrational vilification of the President and his folks..... J.