Ann Coulter defends Paladino

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 4:37 PM GMT
    Please remember...this is the same woman who was invited by GOProud to their "Homocon" event.

    I think the Disturbing part is...she is making O'reily seem reasonable...

    Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ann-coulter-defends-carl-_n_759128.html

    What is it that he said exactly?
    http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/carl-paladino-gays-not-equal-1.2349009

    “I don’t want [our children] brainwashed into thinking homosexuality is an equally valid ... option,” he said in a speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders in Brooklyn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 4:45 PM GMT
    I kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 4:57 PM GMT
    She should not be defending that man, but then again it's Coulter. Paladino is over, as he should be.

    Why do these people who have personal likes/dislikes (which they are perfectly entitled to) feel like they have to incorporate it into some apparent political policy?

    And O'reily is always pretty fair and reasonable. He's not extreme by any stretch.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 4:59 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 5:03 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAnd O'reily is always pretty fair and reasonable. He's not extreme by any stretch.

    icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

    Spoken like a perfect homophobe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 5:04 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.


    Sorry let me clarify. She's aware of and understand logically that she's racist. She keeps it real by explaining exactly what she wants, which is better than racists trying to hide their true intentions. She keeps it real by revealing her true intentions. That's why she's adored in the conservative community. I still disagree with her though don't get me wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 5:14 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.


    Sorry let me clarify. She's aware of and understand logically that she's racist. She keeps it real by explaining exactly what she wants, which is better than racists trying to hide their true intentions. She keeps it real by revealing her true intentions. That's why she's adored in the conservative community. I still disagree with her though don't get me wrong.


    Ah ok, my bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 6:14 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.


    Sorry let me clarify. She's aware of and understand logically that she's racist. She keeps it real by explaining exactly what she wants, which is better than racists trying to hide their true intentions. She keeps it real by revealing her true intentions. That's why she's adored in the conservative community. I still disagree with her though don't get me wrong.


    Ann Coulter is not racist. Anti-gay, you can say, but not racist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 7:27 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    JAKEBENSON said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.


    Sorry let me clarify. She's aware of and understand logically that she's racist. She keeps it real by explaining exactly what she wants, which is better than racists trying to hide their true intentions. She keeps it real by revealing her true intentions. That's why she's adored in the conservative community. I still disagree with her though don't get me wrong.


    Ann Coulter is not racist. Anti-gay, you can say, but not racist.


    She is totally racist...

    But you admit she is anti gay...so why was she the guest of honor at "homocon"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 7:42 PM GMT
    Who cares?

    Paladino and Coulter are known quantities. We know they are both homophobes. Homophobes gonna homophobe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 9:32 PM GMT
    I disagree with Coulter's approach but I don't know that by supporting this idiot she is therefore antigay either - at least based on the links provided - though I can see how some invested in the idea that all Republicans must be stupid, racist and homophobes might think that.

    She obviously believes that the end justifies the means. She is prioritizing deficit cutting and fiscal restraint over everything else - including gay rights and personal values. I disagree with this approach but in any election, voters prioritize - you have to. You aren't going to agree with a candidate on every issue - and some issues will be deal breakers for you. In this case, Paladino's comments are so ridiculous that one can't help but question his judgement in all other areas.

    This being said, given the uniting ideas behind the Tea Partiers are not their social values, a lot of those who are socially liberal but economically conservative will place the latter ahead of the former because out of control spending and regulatory burdens hurt everyone - including but especially minorities.

    From Mickey Kaus' blog on an attack on Coulter from the NY Times:
    http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/kausfiles/2010/10/11/ann-coulter-gets-the-nyt-sunday-sneer-treatment.html
    Holson sneers that Coulter's "sudden zeal" regarding gays "might might strike some as an opportunistic grab for a spotlight that has faded somewhat." But it wasn't very sudden. Coulter has a whole chapter in her book If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans on why gays should join the GOP. The chapter is called "No Gays Left Behind!" The book came out in 2007. (In it she quotes herself from 2006: "I like gays. I like all gays. And not just the ones who are Ann Coulter drag queens.") I'm told she also said the same thing about gays and Republicans in the Q&A at the very 2007 CPAC conference where she made her controversial John Edwards/Isaiah Washington/John Edwards "fa--ot" joke (though I can't get the video to work). Pretty shrewd of her to realize in 2007 that in two years the Tea Parties would rise up and steal her "thunder"—so she'd better start going for the gays!

    From another Republican on Paladino:
    http://beta.wnyc.org/blogs/its-free-blog/2010/oct/12/trouble-carl/
    How did Carl Paladino become the Republican candidate for Governor of New York? Guess #1 is that it's an anti-incumbent year and, as people had heard of Rick Lazio, he took on the incumbent stench. Guess #2? There is no guess #2 — just the lingering question and answer: could Republicans possibly have picked a more inept candidate? No. No, we could not. [...]

    To be clear, my issue is not the statement he denies making, the one about gay people being dysfunctional. My problem is everything else he admits to saying. He doesn't dispute that he said kids get "brainwashed" into thinking homosexuality is a "valid or successful option." Putting aside the fact that there are few left who still can seriously believe homosexuality is a choice into which one can be "brainwashed", you know what isn't a valid or successful option? Cheating on your wife and fathering a child out of wedlock! Hiding behind his Catholicism is just weak, as clearly he's been picking and choosing which part of his faith he practices. Does the Catholic Church support heterosexual infidelity? Let me check. Oh, there it is — no, they don't. They don't consider that a valid or successful option.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 9:46 PM GMT
    Ann Coulter needs to have her head chopped off and put on public display.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 9:46 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidI disagree with Coulter's approach but I don't know that by supporting this idiot she is therefore antigay either - at least based on the links provided - though I can see how some invested in the idea that all Republicans must be stupid, racist and homophobes might think that.

    She obviously believes that the end justifies the means. She is prioritizing deficit cutting and fiscal restraint over everything else - including gay rights and personal values. I disagree with this approach but in any election, voters prioritize - you have to. You aren't going to agree with a candidate on every issue - and some issues will be deal breakers for you. In this case, Paladino's comments are so ridiculous that one can't help but question his judgement in all other areas.

    This being said, given the uniting ideas behind the Tea Partiers are not their social values, a lot of those who are socially liberal but economically conservative will place the latter ahead of the former because out of control spending and regulatory burdens hurt everyone - including but especially minorities.


    This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, almost every notable Tea Party candidate is a social conservative - Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Carl Paladino, Christine O'Donnell. And recent polls of Tea Party members suggest they are much more socially conservative then originally thought.

    http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/25359234/detail.html

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-05/top-5-misconceptions-about-the-tea-party-movement/2/

    Basically, they're mostly the same anti-government, anti-woman, anti-gay folks that have always formed the far right of the Republican party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 10:36 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    JAKEBENSON said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.


    Sorry let me clarify. She's aware of and understand logically that she's racist. She keeps it real by explaining exactly what she wants, which is better than racists trying to hide their true intentions. She keeps it real by revealing her true intentions. That's why she's adored in the conservative community. I still disagree with her though don't get me wrong.


    Ann Coulter is not racist. Anti-gay, you can say, but not racist.


    She still holds racist thoughts even if she doesn't know it. For example, she explained how interracial couples look at her as if she's judging them. That's what's going on in HER head and maybe inside a few older interracial couples' heads. It holds some merit but is largely false. Never in my life has the thought of an interracial couple even crossed my mind as somehow taboo or awful. So I've never thought of interracial couples starring down at me as if I'm judging them negatively. Or if they did I sure as hell wasn't aware of it. That's her racist thoughts guiding her interpretation of interracial couples.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 12, 2010 10:44 PM GMT
    LOL ....... If Ann Coulter needs to come to your defense to be the voice of reason

    .......... then by ALL COUNTS >>>>>>>>>> You're F**kin' NUTS icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 11:51 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidI disagree with Coulter's approach but I don't know that by supporting this idiot she is therefore antigay either - at least based on the links provided - though I can see how some invested in the idea that all Republicans must be stupid, racist and homophobes might think that.

    She obviously believes that the end justifies the means. She is prioritizing deficit cutting and fiscal restraint over everything else - including gay rights and personal values. I disagree with this approach but in any election, voters prioritize - you have to. You aren't going to agree with a candidate on every issue - and some issues will be deal breakers for you. In this case, Paladino's comments are so ridiculous that one can't help but question his judgement in all other areas.

    This being said, given the uniting ideas behind the Tea Partiers are not their social values, a lot of those who are socially liberal but economically conservative will place the latter ahead of the former because out of control spending and regulatory burdens hurt everyone - including but especially minorities.


    This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, almost every notable Tea Party candidate is a social conservative - Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Carl Paladino, Christine O'Donnell. And recent polls of Tea Party members suggest they are much more socially conservative then originally thought.

    http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/25359234/detail.html

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-05/top-5-misconceptions-about-the-tea-party-movement/2/

    Basically, they're mostly the same anti-government, anti-woman, anti-gay folks that have always formed the far right of the Republican party.


    Just curious, do you have any actual data to back up your views other than conjecture and wishful thinking as those links can be mostly characterized? I've seen quite the opposite in commentary and polling that suggests that the Tea Partiers are far more mainstream than previously believed - that they tend to be wealthier and more accepting and that generally more people in the US have more favorable views of the Tea Party than unfavorable ones. Most recent polling data here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/platinum/political_tracking_crosstabs/october_2010/crosstabs_tea_party_october_6_7_2010

    Watch Russ Feingold extol his "Tea Party values" here: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/10/russ-feingold-and-his-gop-challenger.html. And then of course the apparently original Tea Partier himself, Jimmy Carter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/jimmy-carter-tea-party-wi_n_731445.html (there are more links if you look for Jimmy Carter + Tea Party but I figured I'd deliberately quote from the right wing Huffington Post)

    I can see why you are one of the people invested in this idea that they must be "anti-government, anti-woman, anti-gay folks". Given the extreme positions you hold, practically any view is bound to come across as extreme to you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2010 11:53 PM GMT
    lol, Anne told a audience member up here to take a camel or flying carpet back to her country (in the middle east).

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/03/24/2010-03-24_ann_coulter_causes_firestorm_by_telling_muslim_to_take_a_camel_as_alternative_to.html

    Oh yeah, nothing racist about ol' Annie.

    Anne's not anti-gay?

    According to Talking Points Memo's Megan Carpentier:

    In fact, despite opening her speech with a joke about the difficulty of "coming out" as a fiscal conservative to one's parents — something she congratulated the attendees on — Coulter's speech to GOProud mystifyingly focused on social issues and not the fiscal and foreign policy issues that brought most of the attendees there. For instance, she told GOProud that the conservative gay rights movement ought to make common cause with the anti-abortion movement because, she said, "as soon as they find the gay gene, you know who's getting aborted." Coulter also made a forceful case against sex education in schools, accusing liberals of attempting to teach kindergartners about "fisting" (which garnered her a heckler, who shouted out "What's wrong with fisting?") and told the crowd that most parents didn't want their children learning about the "homosexual lifestyle" instead of reading and writing."



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2010 12:15 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidI disagree with Coulter's approach but I don't know that by supporting this idiot she is therefore antigay either - at least based on the links provided - though I can see how some invested in the idea that all Republicans must be stupid, racist and homophobes might think that.

    She obviously believes that the end justifies the means. She is prioritizing deficit cutting and fiscal restraint over everything else - including gay rights and personal values. I disagree with this approach but in any election, voters prioritize - you have to. You aren't going to agree with a candidate on every issue - and some issues will be deal breakers for you. In this case, Paladino's comments are so ridiculous that one can't help but question his judgement in all other areas.

    This being said, given the uniting ideas behind the Tea Partiers are not their social values, a lot of those who are socially liberal but economically conservative will place the latter ahead of the former because out of control spending and regulatory burdens hurt everyone - including but especially minorities.


    This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, almost every notable Tea Party candidate is a social conservative - Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Carl Paladino, Christine O'Donnell. And recent polls of Tea Party members suggest they are much more socially conservative then originally thought.

    http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/25359234/detail.html

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-05/top-5-misconceptions-about-the-tea-party-movement/2/

    Basically, they're mostly the same anti-government, anti-woman, anti-gay folks that have always formed the far right of the Republican party.


    You repeatedly offer misinformation. Rand Paul is not a social conservative when it comes to legislation, although he may be a social conservative personally. There's a big difference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2010 12:17 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    mocktwinkie said
    JAKEBENSON said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.


    Sorry let me clarify. She's aware of and understand logically that she's racist. She keeps it real by explaining exactly what she wants, which is better than racists trying to hide their true intentions. She keeps it real by revealing her true intentions. That's why she's adored in the conservative community. I still disagree with her though don't get me wrong.


    Ann Coulter is not racist. Anti-gay, you can say, but not racist.


    She still holds racist thoughts even if she doesn't know it. For example, she explained how interracial couples look at her as if she's judging them. That's what's going on in HER head and maybe inside a few older interracial couples' heads. It holds some merit but is largely false. Never in my life has the thought of an interracial couple even crossed my mind as somehow taboo or awful. So I've never thought of interracial couples starring down at me as if I'm judging them negatively. Or if they did I sure as hell wasn't aware of it. That's her racist thoughts guiding her interpretation of interracial couples.


    Come on! Who cares if someone isn't a fan of interracial marriages? Some people don't like overweight individuals, some don't like people with red hair...all that matters is if someone wants to LEGISLATE their preferences. We all discriminate every day in our personal life about who we want to hang out with, who is "annoying", who we find attractive, etc.

    That being said, her comment about interracial couples looking at others almost eagerly waiting to be judged is absolutely true. I see it all the time (can't say I'm really sure why). Furthermore, you failed to mention that Ann Coulter followed her comment by saying "we don't care, nobody cares". Hardly evidence that she disapproves of interracial marriages, and even if she did who cares as long as she doesn't plan on believing it should be pursued with legislation.

    Why is there such a complete failure among individuals to understand the difference between a personal preference and a political stance?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2010 1:10 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidYou repeatedly offer misinformation. Rand Paul is not a social conservative when it comes to legislation, although he may be a social conservative personally. There's a big difference.


    Really? Google around. He is anti-choice. He does not support a repeal of DADT. He does not support marriage equality.

    What other criteria are you using? And how do you know that he will legislate differently?

    You just refuse to denounce a homophobe for their homophobia despite your like of their other positions. I have asked you before to do so and you have ignored me despite responding to my comments otherwise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2010 1:57 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    JAKEBENSON said
    mocktwinkie said
    JAKEBENSON said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.


    Sorry let me clarify. She's aware of and understand logically that she's racist. She keeps it real by explaining exactly what she wants, which is better than racists trying to hide their true intentions. She keeps it real by revealing her true intentions. That's why she's adored in the conservative community. I still disagree with her though don't get me wrong.


    Ann Coulter is not racist. Anti-gay, you can say, but not racist.


    She still holds racist thoughts even if she doesn't know it. For example, she explained how interracial couples look at her as if she's judging them. That's what's going on in HER head and maybe inside a few older interracial couples' heads. It holds some merit but is largely false. Never in my life has the thought of an interracial couple even crossed my mind as somehow taboo or awful. So I've never thought of interracial couples starring down at me as if I'm judging them negatively. Or if they did I sure as hell wasn't aware of it. That's her racist thoughts guiding her interpretation of interracial couples.


    Come on! Who cares if someone isn't a fan of interracial marriages? Some people don't like overweight individuals, some don't like people with red hair...all that matters is if someone wants to LEGISLATE their preferences. We all discriminate every day in our personal life about who we want to hang out with, who is "annoying", who we find attractive, etc.

    That being said, her comment about interracial couples looking at others almost eagerly waiting to be judged is absolutely true. I see it all the time (can't say I'm really sure why). Furthermore, you failed to mention that Ann Coulter followed her comment by saying "we don't care, nobody cares". Hardly evidence that she disapproves of interracial marriages, and even if she did who cares as long as she doesn't plan on believing it should be pursued with legislation.

    Why is there such a complete failure among individuals to understand the difference between a personal preference and a political stance?


    Speaking of complete failure, look at yourself in the mirror. You'll notice that you're a giant labia and incapable of understanding the most basic conversation ever created. Don't point to something I say as a failure especially when it's not a failure. That makes for a happy Jake to flame the fucking crap out of you...

    I was expressing Ann Coulter's PREJUDICE which is...yes...different than legislating DISCRIMINATION. The fact that she thinks that THEY think she thinks negatively when looking at them is her own prejudice and bias. Because they're not thinking that. She's thinking they think that. Are you following me? However, noting the difference between prejudice and discrimination is NOT the original topic of conversation. Moreover, judging interracial couples is a racially motivated here. Likewise, a heterosexual thinking homosexuals are paranoid looking around when they're not is also homophobia because the heterosexual assumes the homosexuals are insecure about their sexuality when they may or may not be in reality. But with your comparison, I can justify hating a homosexual because I can say, "well some people don't like fat people either...oh that's not hate it's a preference."

    Please learn to discriminate the difference between talking about Ann Coulter's prejudice tendencies, which is what we are doing, and digressing fervently on the difference between Ann Coulter's prejudice, and her arguably lack of discrimination.

    Moreover, yes hating interracial couples is prejudice; it's not a mundane personal bias. It's historically a deeply rooted prejudice and used to be discrimination until interracial marriages became legal (finally) in the mid 20th century. If you're completely unaware of the fact that people used to hate it so much that it was ILLEGAL, then I suggest you grab a thick history book and slap it across your face...and then read it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2010 3:41 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie said
    mocktwinkie saidYou repeatedly offer misinformation. Rand Paul is not a social conservative when it comes to legislation, although he may be a social conservative personally. There's a big difference.


    Really? Google around. He is anti-choice. He does not support a repeal of DADT. He does not support marriage equality.

    What other criteria are you using? And how do you know that he will legislate differently?

    You just refuse to denounce a homophobe for their homophobia despite your like of their other positions. I have asked you before to do so and you have ignored me despite responding to my comments otherwise.


    *shakes head* You obviously know nothing of Rand Paul's positions. He is extremely libertarian in his views, although he does define life starting at conception, which means that in his mind he is merely protecting another citizen from being harmed. "Freedom" doesn't mean the freedom for someone to kill someone else. Got that? Abortion is a tough one because it all depends on when you define life beginning.

    As far as marriage, he believes that marriage is a church institution and that civil unions should be granted to everyone equally, including gays. Furthermore, he is not opposed to gays getting married in the very same way that heterosexuals would get married, but it would not have anything to do with the state.

    In short, he is more pro-gay than Obama. Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative. He, along with his father even lean towards legalizing marijuana. Not exactly a fundamentalist stance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2010 3:53 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON said
    mocktwinkie said
    JAKEBENSON said
    mocktwinkie said
    JAKEBENSON said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JAKEBENSON saidI kinda understand her point. She keeps it real. But yeah Paladino won't get elected because of his speech in front of the Orthodox Jews.


    She keeps it real? You may want to rethink that.


    Sorry let me clarify. She's aware of and understand logically that she's racist. She keeps it real by explaining exactly what she wants, which is better than racists trying to hide their true intentions. She keeps it real by revealing her true intentions. That's why she's adored in the conservative community. I still disagree with her though don't get me wrong.


    Ann Coulter is not racist. Anti-gay, you can say, but not racist.


    She still holds racist thoughts even if she doesn't know it. For example, she explained how interracial couples look at her as if she's judging them. That's what's going on in HER head and maybe inside a few older interracial couples' heads. It holds some merit but is largely false. Never in my life has the thought of an interracial couple even crossed my mind as somehow taboo or awful. So I've never thought of interracial couples starring down at me as if I'm judging them negatively. Or if they did I sure as hell wasn't aware of it. That's her racist thoughts guiding her interpretation of interracial couples.


    Come on! Who cares if someone isn't a fan of interracial marriages? Some people don't like overweight individuals, some don't like people with red hair...all that matters is if someone wants to LEGISLATE their preferences. We all discriminate every day in our personal life about who we want to hang out with, who is "annoying", who we find attractive, etc.

    That being said, her comment about interracial couples looking at others almost eagerly waiting to be judged is absolutely true. I see it all the time (can't say I'm really sure why). Furthermore, you failed to mention that Ann Coulter followed her comment by saying "we don't care, nobody cares". Hardly evidence that she disapproves of interracial marriages, and even if she did who cares as long as she doesn't plan on believing it should be pursued with legislation.

    Why is there such a complete failure among individuals to understand the difference between a personal preference and a political stance?


    Speaking of complete failure, look at yourself in the mirror. You'll notice that you're a giant labia and incapable of understanding the most basic conversation ever created. Don't point to something I say as a failure especially when it's not a failure. That makes for a happy Jake to flame the fucking crap out of you...

    I was expressing Ann Coulter's PREJUDICE which is...yes...different than legislating DISCRIMINATION. The fact that she thinks that THEY think she thinks negatively when looking at them is her own prejudice and bias. Because they're not thinking that. She's thinking they think that. Are you following me? However, noting the difference between prejudice and discrimination is NOT the original topic of conversation. Moreover, judging interracial couples is a racially motivated here. Likewise, a heterosexual thinking homosexuals are paranoid looking around when they're not is also homophobia because the heterosexual assumes the homosexuals are insecure about their sexuality when they may or may not be in reality. But with your comparison, I can justify hating a homosexual because I can say, "well some people don't like fat people either...oh that's not hate it's a preference."

    Please learn to discriminate the difference between talking about Ann Coulter's prejudice tendencies, which is what we are doing, and digressing fervently on the difference between Ann Coulter's prejudice, and her arguably lack of discrimination.

    Moreover, yes hating interracial couples is prejudice; it's not a mundane personal bias. It's historically a deeply rooted prejudice and used to be discrimination until interracial marriages became legal (finally) in the mid 20th century. If you're completely unaware of the fact that people used to hate it so much that it was ILLEGAL, then I suggest you grab a thick history book and slap it across your face...and then read it.


    You're having a comprehension failure and grabbing at straws. Despite your rant, you have no evidence whatsoever that she is racist because she made that statement. I repeat, she followed that comment by saying "nobody cares". Would you like to call Harry Reid a racist because of his comment?

    And yes, I have no problem whatsoever if someone wants to dislike or hate gay people on a personal level, that is their choice. I may think it is a bad choice just like when someone hates another because they are fat or because they are democrat or republican or perceived as ugly. Whatever it may be.

    You are under some delusional impression, pressed upon you by western brainwashing, that if someone were to say "I'm not a fan of interracial marriage", that it is a greater offense than saying "I'm not a fan of dating redheads". I could just as easily say "I'm not really a fan of short people for dating" or "yuck, look at how big that guys' nose is", and you would automatically think "he has a preference, but I don't agree". But if someone were to say "I'm not attracted to blacks at all" you would imagine that it's some horrendously hateful comment, simply because the subject involves race. The word "racist" has become a complete joke. So if someone isn't a fan of hanging around older people and they are younger does that make them an ageist? What about someone who isn't a fan of hanging around overweight people? Is that a "weightist"? Really, what is the difference? We judge people on looks ALL the time, either indirectly or directly.

    Is individual discrimination any worse than broad discrimination? Seriously? Gawd you're so full of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    How stupid must GOProud feel for making this stupid bitch relevant again?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2010 4:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidI disagree with Coulter's approach but I don't know that by supporting this idiot she is therefore antigay either - at least based on the links provided - though I can see how some invested in the idea that all Republicans must be stupid, racist and homophobes might think that.

    She obviously believes that the end justifies the means. She is prioritizing deficit cutting and fiscal restraint over everything else - including gay rights and personal values. I disagree with this approach but in any election, voters prioritize - you have to. You aren't going to agree with a candidate on every issue - and some issues will be deal breakers for you. In this case, Paladino's comments are so ridiculous that one can't help but question his judgement in all other areas.

    This being said, given the uniting ideas behind the Tea Partiers are not their social values, a lot of those who are socially liberal but economically conservative will place the latter ahead of the former because out of control spending and regulatory burdens hurt everyone - including but especially minorities.


    This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, almost every notable Tea Party candidate is a social conservative - Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Carl Paladino, Christine O'Donnell. And recent polls of Tea Party members suggest they are much more socially conservative then originally thought.

    http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/25359234/detail.html

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-05/top-5-misconceptions-about-the-tea-party-movement/2/

    Basically, they're mostly the same anti-government, anti-woman, anti-gay folks that have always formed the far right of the Republican party.


    Just curious, do you have any actual data to back up your views other than conjecture and wishful thinking as those links can be mostly characterized? I've seen quite the opposite in commentary and polling that suggests that the Tea Partiers are far more mainstream than previously believed - that they tend to be wealthier and more accepting and that generally more people in the US have more favorable views of the Tea Party than unfavorable ones. Most recent polling data here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/platinum/political_tracking_crosstabs/october_2010/crosstabs_tea_party_october_6_7_2010

    Watch Russ Feingold extol his "Tea Party values" here: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/10/russ-feingold-and-his-gop-challenger.html. And then of course the apparently original Tea Partier himself, Jimmy Carter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/jimmy-carter-tea-party-wi_n_731445.html (there are more links if you look for Jimmy Carter + Tea Party but I figured I'd deliberately quote from the right wing Huffington Post)

    I can see why you are one of the people invested in this idea that they must be "anti-government, anti-woman, anti-gay folks". Given the extreme positions you hold, practically any view is bound to come across as extreme to you.


    The Rassmusen site doesn't work, not that it would matter because their polls are nearly always spun to the right. You can see this in any comparison between them and mainstream pollsters.

    The rest of your response is silly, comparing Feingold's assertion that he believes in the primacy of the Constitution as Tea Baggers do, doesn't take away from the, yes, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-middle class, anti-separation of Church and State, and, lest we forget, anti-masturbation, positions of the Tea Party candidates.

    Sharron Angle
    Supports DOMA, DADT, opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, does not believe in separation of Church and State.

    Rand Paul
    Opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest, opposes same-sex marriage - though does believe it's a state issue.

    Carl Paladino
    Against same-sex marriage, believes women who are raped should give their children up for adoption, even in cases of incest, would repeal the Taylor Law, eliminate welfare in NY State.

    Christine O'Donnell
    Opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest, but if the woman was otherwise going to die, she would allow family members to decide which life to save; believes homosexuality is an identity disorder; beliefs masturbation is a sin.

    Now, explain again how these candidates are not anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-middle class, etc. icon_rolleyes.gif