It is kind of amusing that the BJ attitude towards this issue is exactly what Coulter is speaking out against. This idea that these women are above all discussion because of the tragedy they experience.
Ann Coulter is wrong in her premise, and in her presentation. 1. Nobody should speak against these women. That should be absolute to any decent person. Yet even still nobody has been prevented from speaking against them 2. Eveyone and anyone should be ale to speak against their politics, the positions on issues, and debate their policy stance. Prior to Ann's book, presently, and forever afterward NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN PREVENTED FROM SPEAKING AGAINST THE 9/11 WIDOWS POSITIONS. It is a made up situation by Coulter. Please give me one example of anyone speaking up against the position held by these widows prior to Coulter's books.
This is the quote, giddyup: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much." It is heinous, it is reprehensible, it is sick and you unapologetically defend it. As such, I can only conclude that you are sick too. This isn't about me. And I didn't twist her words at all. She was quoted. I have used the words "liar" and "bigot" quite a lot lately, you're right. I wish I hadn't had cause to, but I have. If I was an adult during the debates over Civil Rights for blacks, I would have used the word bigot a lot then too. It is appropriate now as the GOP and the religious right try to make bigotry against homosexuals a winning issue. I have used the word liar quite a lot to describe various lies the Bush administration has told the American people, be it about certainty amongst the intelligence community wrt WMD's in Iraq (when the intelligence community was absolutely uncertain and Bush knew it), whether or not "anyone could have predicted" the breach of the levees in NOLA (when it had been predicted to Bush himself), the idea that "any time you talk about wiretapping, that requires a warrant" (when Bush was overseeing secret, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens), and on and on. If you want to argue that those aren't lies (even though it couldn't be more clear that they are), fine. If you want to argue that discrimination against gays or the right to discriminate against gays or different rules and freedoms for gays than for straights does not equal bigotry, fine. You're wrong if you argue that, but fine. But to complain that I'm being impolite by using the words "bigot" and "liar," when I continually provide evidence of bigotry and dishonesty, is stupid. You and Jorge and texxx and basso and the rest make these debates about me as a rule when you can't muster a decent argument back. I don't know how many threads I've started only to receive ten to fifteen posts back from you guys, each exclusively about me in lieu of any argument to contradict my thesis or the thesis stated in whatever article I've posted. It's stupid. And you're getting tired of me? Man, I've been tired of you as long as I can remember. And I'm not "awaiting an apology" from you because I don't think you're at all capable of admitting a mistake. After all, you're the guy that contorted his defense of Ted Nugent such that you suggested maybe "wetback" was a term of endearment where he was from. Of course, defending Coulter here is considerably more disgusting. You think I'm being self-righteous? Good. I am. And, as FranchiseBlade said, NO ONE of note has suggested it is not okay to disagree with the politics of the 9/11 widows nor has anyone suggested they ought not be criticized. Except Ann Coulter. And you and Nomar bought her paper tiger of an argument so blindly and so willingly that you had no problem with her saying, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much," and calling victims of the greatest attack on American soil "harpies" and "witches." In fact you have even defended her and said she makes a good argument. You're damned right you should be ashamed of yourself. I know you won't be though. You don't even know how.
I do listen occasionally, and I haven't heard anyone trying to prevent people from disagreeing with the widows of 9/11. I would be willing to listen to any specific examples you can think of.
There are many ways to interpret those few words. You and your ilk repeatedly choose the most simple-minded and ugly interpretation because it suits your purposes. If I ever take the time to find an amplification of the remark, you can rest assured I'll post it. I've never bought one of Ann's books. Suprised? I've successfully made the argument against you here and I've just re-iterated it. Do you really think that Ann Coulter is saying that these women enjoyed the very thought of their husbands being incinerated? Yes or No? I'll admit a mistake when it's a mistake. I was just jerking your chain about Nugent those many years ago. I was sincere in most of what I wrote then but I do think that Nugent knew/knows what "wetback" means and just doesn't buy into the PC constraint. If I recall correctly, you pilloried Nugent as a racist. When do you morph into "bigot?" Of course everyone has a right to an opinion; it's raising the issue of offering endorsements that I find objectionable. This fury about the 9/11 widows has been around for years. It just re-surfaced with the publication of Coulter's book, didn't it? Hey, Moses, put down those tablets. They must be getting heavy.... I think I'll go eat some meat. You can go defend someone's right to an abortion and feel yourself superior. And you think I'm deluded?
Jesus, BJ. I'm not sure where your gay love comes from. Calling someone "gay" is not racism, nor bigotry. I'm not sure why you keep harping on this subject. I'm not against homosexuality, but I don't think it's racism either to people who do. And for the love of Pete, I live in a condo in Montrose that I'm quite sure is at least 60% gay.
Fatty, treating homosexuals as second class citizens, denying them the rights other couples have to be married, and have a family, to be on each other's insurance, to be able to visit their loved one in the hospital when they're critically ill, and only close family is allowed... that and a hundred other things heterosexual couples enjoy, if they wish it, to deny them those rights is bigotry. It's not about the word, "gay." It's about equal rights. They don't have them. And I spent years living in Montrose. I enjoyed it very much. That, and the gay community, have nothing to do with the unspeakable filth Coulter heaped upon those women. I find her defense sickening. She deserves none. The overwhelming majority of Republicans are sickened by her words, and her gleeful use of them. No less a conservative than our own Max said that he knew Republicans talking about voting Democratic in the Fall, because they didn't recognize the Republican Party they thought they knew, and felt betrayed. It's what I've heard for a long time from Republican friends and relatives of mine. The feeling is now coming from Max's circle, as well. Honestly, I am at a loss to understand much of what I'm reading, from people I respect, like giddy. I just don't get it. I read it, and I simply don't get it. Some members here have a long history of going back and forth with each other. That's the only explanation I can understand. I have to assume giddy is being so strong in defense of Coulter, because he has to disagree with someone like Batman. I wish he would forget about that for a moment, and truly look at what Coulter is doing. It's obscene. Keep D&D Civil.
I'm still really not clear how "second-class" citizens applies. The only thing homosexuals are not allowed is the right to get married. Get over it! I'm actually fine with the idea of "civil unions" if they want certain gov't. rights. BTW, homosexuality is the only group that is being accepted in this day and age. Every other race or creed has been accepted throughout time in one way or the other. Not so with homosexuality. We are entering a new era. Will homosexuality still be as accepted as it is 50 years from now? Who knows. It never was before. Pay attention to history.
This is going to be interpreted the wrong way, without a doubt. But I feel like I want to ask the question anyway, out of curiousity as to the responses. I want to preface this by stating I am simply asking this question as an independent query, and not as part of an opinion about Deckard's discussion with FFB. What do you think the origins are of making equality a priority? Interpret that as general as you possibly can.
I'm not sure I understand you, Fatty. The ancient Greeks and Romans had no problem at all with men having sex with men. I'm not gay, so there is nothing for me to, "get over." Having been married over 25 years, if I'm in the critical care ward of a hospital, and only close family members can visit, my wife has nothing preventing her from seeing me. Homosexuals do. Tell them to get over it. Besides, this thread is about that piece of human excrement, Ann Coulter, not about history being a passion of mine for over 40 years, or the bigotry that still exists against homosexuals. With all due respect. Keep D&D Civil.
Not sure what you mean with the hospital thingie. My mom was in ICU for over a month. All visitors were welcome, including my brother's pastor, whom my mother couldn't stand. As long as it was visiting hours, any and all comers were welcome. Look. I'm not against gays. Every gay man I've met, and I've met a lot, have been stand-up people. But at the same time, I believe they made that choice, just like anyone else does. As I've said, I choose to drink more than the average individual. Is my drinking a choice or a disease? It matters not. The fact that I drink excludes me from certain things. Period. So does many many things in society. Is homosexuality a choice? In the end, it is. If you go that way, you lose certain privelidges. That is not racism, or predjudice. It's simply a matter of fact. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll download a Weathergirls song...
I don't know anything about your Mom, Fatty, but I've had close family members, on the verge of death, and only other close family members were allowed to visit. A pastor might have been allowed, for obvious reasons, but a gay life companion would have had a very difficult time getting in. That's just how it was. And homosexuality is no more a choice than you choosing to be a heterosexual, if you are. Look, this thread is not about gay rights, it's about that piece of human ****, Ann Coulter, so that's the last mention of homosexual rights you'll get out of me here. Start a thread about it, or bring back an old one, and I might discuss it there, OK? Keep D&D Civil.
I talked about my mom's issues in the Hangout thread a few months back. She was at Hermann. As I said, any and all were welcome during visiting hours. I'm not buying your theory on that one. As for the other rights, what is wrong with an alternative, such as "Civil Union"? Makes sense to me.
Fatty: As I've said in many threads before, what's wrong with civil unions is that "separate but equal" is not equal -- by definition. We learned that from Brown v. the Board of Education. Gays and lesbians have long been the subject of discrimination. My point is it's time to cut that out. And it is NOT a choice. I don't know if your drinking is a choice or not. If it isn't though, that's on account of alcoholism. That's a disease. Homosexuality isn't. And it isn't a choice. From the beginning of time, some people have been born gay. And the discrimination they've faced, and the idea that it's a choice to belong to that class that faces such discrimination (like anyone would "choose" to live such a difficult life), has been responsible for more suicides, more self-destruction and more self-destructive behavior than you can even imagine. I have a great many gay friends and I know damned well they didn't choose to live the life of a second class citizen. But they are who they are and they can't deny that, no matter how they are beaten or discriminated against. Some try and live miserable lives, since society tells them they are wrong to be who they are, and some accept who they are and suffer society's bigotry. But for you to compare their situation to your drinking habit is just foul. Nomar: I don't know what the origins of making equality a priority are, but I know that the notion of equality is key to our American heritage. I also know that we have a ****ty history where this is concerned. America not only enslaved black people while talking about all men being created equal but also featured an historic period in which many people argued against giving blacks equal rights. They argued against it as passionately as people argue against equal rights for gays and they were as wrong then as they are now. I find it especially offensive that black people (like Rocket River) cannot find common cause with the people that are being discriminated against now as they were then. giddyup: You're plain pathetic. You continue to act like Coulter did nothing wrong when she called the top victims of 9/11 -- those that lost their damn families -- witches, simply for having political opinions based on the most devastating moment in their lives. And yet you find time to bash me for complaining about a money w**** that bashed them. You are pathetic. You complain that I use words like bigot and liar, but you refuse to tell me how I'm wrong to use those words. In fact, you have the nerve to accuse me of being impolite while defending a woman who says that the 9/11 widows enjoyed their husbands' deaths and are harpies. Your only beef with me (apparently, since you never argue the points but only my delivery) is that I'm impolite and yet you defend the most outrageously impolite public figure in our contemporary history. I defy you to find a Democrat or liberal that spews hate speech like Coulter does. You can't do it. And still you complain about my manners while defending a low down scumbag like her. How do you sleep at night?
I was "defending" Coulter's idea before Batman ever showed up. As I've said a number of times, I think Coulter's means of expression is over the top but obscene may be a bit too harsh in my judgement. Regardless of how I feel about Coulter's "tactics," her idea may have merits. I have to ask the same kind of question in reverse: is your side unwilling to even consider the idea put forth by Coulter just because it is Coulter's idea?
1. Coulter only called out these four women not "those that lost their families." You, sir, are a LIAR. 2. Coulter did not criticize them for having a political opinion based on this, that or the other. You, sir, are a LIAR. 3. You started in on me. You, sir, are a LIAR. Why are you holding the widows above criticism? I've argued a couple of times for the point that Ann Coulter is making. You, sir, are a LIAR. How about George Soros? Al Franken? You, sir, are a LIAR. I criticized your side for not really looking at the issue but rather at only the messenger. You, sir, are a LIAR. Well naturally I have nightly sexual fantasies about Ann Coulter. Don't you think she's make a good dominatrix?
