Below is a powerful response from a man with Down’s Syndrome to Ann Coulter who recently called President Barack Obama a “retard.” He is Special Olympics athlete and global messenger John Franklin Stephens. He is also the antidote to today’s hateful political discourse.
Dear Ann Coulter,
Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow. So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?
I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow. I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you. In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.
I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.
Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.
Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.
Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are – and much, much more.
After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me. You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.
I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.
Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.
No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.
Come join us someday at Special Olympics. See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.
A friend you haven’t made yet,
John Franklin Stephens
Global Messenger
Special Olympics Virginia
Someone got a good spanking!!
It is hard to understand how a person like Ms. Coulter gets air time and she gets a lot of air time. She also gets book contracts and paid speaking engagements, many before organizations who claim to be Christian “values” voters. No one will change Ms. Coulter but reading the eloquent response of Mr. Stephens will hopefully have an impact on some of her audience. Thank you Mr. Stephens.
“It is hard to understand how a person like Ms. Coulter gets air time and she gets a lot of air time.”
Justice Holmes, I think this is the first of your comments I’ve read, so please don’t believe what I have to say refers in any way to you. You do, however, raise a question that is as easily asked of some people posting here as of Ann Coulter.
Read the posts of your fellows here, and see how many comments there are that make no pretense of positive contribution, but exist solely to tear down. John’s comments are a rebuke to anyone who “races from one snarkey [comment] to the next,” just for the amusement it affords them – or to achieve a completely unjustifiable sense of superiority, take your pick.
It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.
I have no problem criticizing Coulter. She’s the one with nothing positive to say. She’s the one who makes stuff up just to get publicity. She is the one who doesn’t care who gets hurt as she enjoys being nasty to people.
As for her having a change of heart…Get real. You have to have a heart first in order to change it. Coulters’ heart has so many layers of hate and spite surrounding it a nuke couldn’t penatrate it.
She is a nasty nasty woman who deserves no consideration.
“I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.
…
Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.”
Ayn Rand / Ann Coulter … same difference.
Carol – “I have no problem criticizing Coulter. She’s the one with nothing positive to say.” Perhaps…but she’s not the only one with “nothing positive to say”.
All I was getting at is that, if one criticizes Coulter only, and because she’s Coulter, that one is no better than Coulter, herself. For the criticism to have teeth (in my view), the criticism has to go to the meanness of her comments, and no others who may be mean-spirited, as well, should be exempt from our criticism.
So, have at her! Criticize your heart away. But to have merit (again, in my view), you must be just as willing to criticize anyone else whose comments are not courteous, considerate of others and even charitable.
“Ayn Rand / Ann Coulter … same difference.”
Neither true nor fair, Dredd. Rand is wrong enough on real issues to have to invent charges against her she doesn’t deserve – such as the merits of her “objectivism,” and her notion that charity for its own sake is indefensible.
The cancerous Ann Coulter is not the only one to whom this lucid soul should be extending tolerant wisdom. It’s a fact and therefore only fair to recall that Rahm Emanuel had a similar term, used just as hatefully, to describe Obama’s more liberal followers who felt betrayed at Obama’s secret negotiations with the insurance giants to get rid of the public option so as to eliminate the last significant government price control over the cost of “forced” health insurance; the term Emanuel used was ”f**king retards”. The intent of belittlement and the gross ignorance of the underlying reality regarding the “butt” of his comparison was exactly the same. The only difference is that while Emanuel knew his “message” would ultimately be received by those he intended to smear (liberals), he was if anything, even more sneaky than Coulter in the way he delivered it. NOR -and this is important, – NOR did Obama object to Rahm’s smear either publicly or privately through the same underhanded method of rumors and leaks, and in this omission of which he had to be conscious he joined Emanuel in both intent and character. Indeed, Obama went on to craft his own insults for those who fought hardest for his election, even though the insults had to be more high handed as he delivered them in public and Obama’s courage, like many who have preceded him, is at its greatest when he is well hidden, protected by the millions of enlisted children of those he impoverishes, thousands of miles away virtually or in fact, from the people he controls or insults or – and this, in a Democracy, is unique to Obama since the Magna Carta – from those he assassinates with no judicial review.
Brooklin Bridge – Wow. Then again, since when has politics ever been principled and symmetrical?
Swarthmore mom – This is a Christian tenet: that the “new” covenant supersedes the “old,” and that Jews – the “firstborn” heirs to the “promise,” so to speak – must be reconciled to (perfected by) the “new” covenant to be restored to their primogeniture.
Jews just laugh and think it’s a bunch of hooey.
“Point of hate mongering is to assure the haters, who hate all pols but Obama the most, go to the polls nov 6 instead of kicking the dog.” Favorite tweet from yesterday by Jonathon Alter
enoch – lets pretend I buy your argument that people here are as bad a mAnn Coulter (I would certainly plead guilty with an explanation to that charge in part).
How would you compare me who is a nobody, that nobody listens to anyway, commenting on a blog read by a few hundreds (perhaps a couple of thousand) people to a media circus like her? She is a regular on FAUX news and NBCs Today show, she has books published (albeit by a wingnut vanity press who then buys cartons of their own creation to get it up onto the NYT list) and is popular with large segments of low-information citizens. There is no comparison so please don’t try to pretend that there is.
As for my own guilt I will say this in my defense, I do not bully people smaller than myself, I will gladly berate, disrespect and mock people with power or status above my own. mAnn cannot make the same claim.
I’ll also note one other difference – I have never committed voter fraud by voting illegally. Ms. Coulter has even admitted she has.
It is amazing that the ones usually doing the name calling….. Never see themselves as wrong….. They just jump on the bandwagon with more…… I read somewhere something that went like this…. I’d rather be alone and happy than be with you…..the young man speaks many truths….
BTW – I can hardly wait for news of Ms. Coulter’s slur to reach Wasilla Alaska! That one time a Dem used the word ‘retard’ Mrs. Palin went on a week long publicity tour to decry the insensitivity of it all and how it was a personal insult to her and her family.
Frankly, The people from Wasilla were enjoying their racial slurs yesterday……..
I think John Franklin Stephens qualifies for the Grace Under Pressure Award. Bravo. Defanging the shrew takes guts indeed.
Keep it in context.
Who among us has never used the lord’s name in vein? Who has never cast a stone or uttered a hateful remark?
Not all insults are the same. A public figure such as Coulter has a greater responsibility than the private one when she uses such expressions of hatred to sway millions. A president has a vastly greater responsibility still.
And facts should not be ignored simply because it is election time.
Coulter is the political pundit equivalent of P.T.Barnum. She has a following of sorts, gets a lot of air time, makes outrageous statements, sells some books and laughs all the way to the bank. She does not care who she steps on or hurts in the process as long as she profits from it. Not unexpected for a sociopath.
Obama hater Donald Trump’s big announcement certainly was a flop yesterday.
Frankly – Given my lifestyle (farming), I have the luxury of being as old-fashioned as I like – quaint, if you will. I don’t expect you to believe me, but I mean it when I say that the analysis, comparison and response regarding you or any other person on these pages isn’t for me to make, but for you and them.
Look, I’m no saint, and I’ve fallen below my own pretense of standards here, too. I simply try not to engage with the ones who have brought out that worst in me. I shame myself when I write on – well, forget “their” level – any level I’m not proud of.
If you’re fully satisfied in everything you’ve written in the context we’re discussing, it’s not for me to contradict you. If I ever had what I think is good reason to think you shouldn’t be that satisfied (so far, I don’t), I’ll simply stop engaging with you.
…and by all means, if I should fall below the standards of discourse we’re discussing here, please ignore me, too. I will have deserved it.
I read one of Coulter’s books. In my opinion It was really not very good and full of wrong science. I havent read another one.
Ann Coulter is the poster child for nonsense and lies. Congrats to Mr. Stephens for calling her out.
Bron – you have a stronger stomach than anyone I know.
I read an interesting take down on her use of footnotes. Her footnotes often led to articles that refuted rather than supported he assertions. The trick is people who are not that bright don’t read the note they simply assume it must support her point.
Politicians are pulling the same sort of stunt a lot now “Visit my website, where I explain all this in detail”. Yet when you go to the web site there is either nothing or just more glittering generalities. But, again, most people don’t bother they just believe they know what will be out there.
I thought about getting one of her books but someone had already colored in all the pictures
Enoch,
Just itching to reply to you I skip from your second expression of your idea:
“I don’t expect you to believe me, but I mean it when I say that the analysis, comparison and response regarding you or any other person on these pages isn’t for me to make, but for you and them.”
The first assertion was clearer, but can’t let this one lay without AGREEING with you.
So recently as yesterday (and most days for that matter) I pointed out that the pleasure of laughing at your neighbor
is a shallow one when one should instead be comparing ones on failings instead relative to the same compass/scale/ruler.
It is a basicly daily occurence here at JT’s that at least one blog that day will enable such parades of “better than these dummers” comments. The Professor not only panders to his readers in that respect but to his own needs.
Muslims do have indeed medieval societies which history, for one, provides explanations for. But why not concentrate on correcting our sick society that at least had a sound written foundation and material resources—but which in spite of these advantages has produced Ann Coulter and millions of supporters to the detriment of our own society.
I would assert that in terms of pure percentages the number of human outrages done in muslim countries are fewer than here. Of course it is difficult to number the outrages done in a theological totalitarian society.
Should we sympathize with criminals who do terrible deeds?
Perhaps I am the only one here who would answer “yes”.
“Who shall cast the first stone” is a well-known theme from Jesus. Similarly, meny don’t know (and neither did I once) that the miracle of feeding the crowds with a few loaves and fish was not the real miracle, but the fact that Jesus got the crowd to cast off their prejudices and taboos and sit down together with strangers…..some who were publicans and some who were pharisees.
As for the “snark, laugh and run on” theme. I agree it is all too dominant here, and some use the “hot in the kitchen” defense, or correcting defective reasoning.
And as long as we have Ann Coulter, then we will have to tolerate abusers here.
Fortuntely, the abuser have other Dr Jekyll sides to them.
She does not apparently to judge purely based on this video.
But it is painful, empathetic as I am to those “handicapped” (not the young man, but the abusers here), to see people who fully believe that any behavior is theirs to use as long as they think it OK.
GeneH blog on the difference between good laws and bad laws gave a comparison between two related but different criteria: soft rule vs act….. Some here and Ann Coulter believe (if they think?) that act is their one of choice. And they see always to their benefits weighing more than the cost to others.
Equality does not exist for her. She’s a perfect example of excess braininess used for a bad cause. Goebell would have loved here. Just like he did Nini, for those who remember the films she made.
A little OT, I will finish by saying we are all (generallly) rubes. We let the foreign circus which is pointed to constantly by our “leaders”, to distract us——-instead of requiring them to fix our “circus” first.
Ignoring life threats? I think not. At least not to the point that our ills and loss of civil liberties must increase as they have with those weak threats as cause and distraction.
Frankly:
Actually as you well know, my inclination is toward the republican party [although much less so in recent years], so I read one of her books as I have read one of Savages books and one of Mark Levin’s books.
To tell you the truth I honestly thought I would like them, I did like some of what they had to say but for the most part they were rather intellectually shallow, even Levin’s book “Men In Black”. I was actually surprised by that because I had thought he [Levin] could have done a much better job, I could have written that book and I am not a lawyer. It was shallow like the others or maybe I should say there was nothing that made you think “now that is an interesting way to look at that”.
I dont pay much attention to them anymore.
NB: Empathy with “handicapped” does not preclude condemnation—especially those who commit base crimes; not the deranged, who are their own category to be given lifetime incarceration.
Is using the term “Special Olympics bowler” much different?
enochwisner wrote:
“…see how many comments there are that make no pretense of positive contribution, but exist solely to tear down.”
*****
That is a perfect description of Coulter’s modus operandi. She says hateful and outrageous things about people like President Obama that she knows will bring her lots of media attention. She loves the notoriety. She deserves to be castigated for her most recent “R-word” comment about the president.
Rahm Emanuel apologized to the head of the Special Olympics after word got out that he called some liberal critics “f*cking retarded.” I wonder if Coulter will apologize for her comment.
Ann Coulter gets away with a lot of crap because some people think she’s more intelligent and informed than she really is. Remember this?
@ EnochWisner,
I am better than Ann Coulter.
I can criticize her, not just because I am better than her, but because:
(a) She is a public figure and thus I can criticize her even if I’m a lot worse; and
(b) I am criticizing her NOT for who she is but for what she has done. I have no idea who she is. Why should I care? What she has done is just plain reprehensible and I call her out for it; she should be ashamed of herself but even lacks the capacity for shame.
That is one of the main reasons I am better than she is.
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/181/83_schreiber.pdf
“The New Delhi Conference ended on 6 August 1954, after setting an ambitious target date for the opening of ICSC opera-tions in Vietnam as 11August 1954, only slightly more than a week away. A scram-ble ensued in Ottawa to find personnel available to fill the slots. Some of the more senior ICSC members went directly from New Delhi to their positions in Indochina, their luggage to be forwarded once packed. The Canadian contingent required over 150 military and diplomatic personnel, 83 of these being military officers.2″
Sounds like Canadian troops were in Indochina [vietnam] to me.
Malisha,
No matter how hard I rack my brain I can’t find anything “positive” to say about Ann Coulter. Maybe Enochwisner can make a “positive contribution” and inform us of all the good things that Ann Coulter has done to improve political discourse in this country.
Elaine:
she called John Edwards the Breck Girl?
Elaine she’s kind of pretty (well until she opens her mouth) that is about all I can think of to say something + about her
Elaine M:
Ann Coulter gets away with a lot of crap because …
*******************
… some middle aged white men think she’s cute and sassy. (Like the witless Charo or Anna Nicole Smith.) She has blonde hair and wears short skirts. She race baits, gay baits and progressive baits which all appeal the denizens of the small cesspools she inhabits. She combines sex and politics – a powerful aphrodisiac for the frustrated conservative crowd who feign propriety in public but lust in private. She’s Sarah Palin with a vocabulary!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/25/2012-voters-the-deepest-racial-split-since-88/ The deepest racial split since 1988…… I voted for Dukakis too. He was severely demonized by the repubs.
How do you respond to the eloquency of Mr. John Franklin Stephens? There is so much I can say, but still I cannot match his articualte and refined words of wisdom.`
“No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.”
Ofcourse the Coulters, and the Justices (ON THE U.S SUPREME COURT) who give lip service to the Special Education statues they pretend to buy…i.e. the Winkleman Decision (and we know it is ONLY LIP SERVICE) because when mothers like me go after their rights, these guys (and gals) provide The Cover of destruction and nightmare: The porn and death-threats, jail-time and illegal removal of the child so that a School District attorney can be triumphant at the child and parent’s expense!
GOD IS WATCHING. AND HE WATCHES AS YOU QUIETLY SEND THE MURDERER TO KILL THE MOTHER …UNDER COVER TO THE NH STATE ATTORNEY!
The child that the parent (me) had hopes to over-come the in-born obstacles thus OVERCOMING! let’s hear the words again!
“No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.”
I looked at those videos above of the Coulter thing and my first comment is that they could lose the face shots and just show the legs. As for the name calling. Please Google : The Southern Strategy and Lee Atwater. You will se the story behind the new republiCon revolution under Nixon and Raygun, which was to appeal to the bigots amongst us and within us. You dont have to use the N word three times anymore, Lee Atwater advised. No use other words and characterize the Democrats as welfare cheats etc. Retard is just another word, with nothing much to lose. The kid did well with his letter. For now on though I refer to the leg lady as “Ann Retard Coulter”
“Jews just laugh and think it’s a bunch of hooey.”
Enoch,
You presume to know what all Jews think. I’m a Jew and I don’t think it is funny at all, I find it disturbing. The stereotyping of Jewish thought as monolithic, as even some Jews do, is in itself a sign of lack of knowledge and bigotry.
Beyond that though, once again you stray from the point made in a blog post in a manner that is easily understood as obfuscation. What do you thing of Coulter’s remark? What do you think of this man’s reply?
I personally think the remark was reprehensible and the man’s comment brilliant and heartfelt. I await your opinion.
I suggest that it is perhaps your lack of response to the issues at hand on three threads that I know of, is the reason that I and others here attacked you. Are you really unable to see your own contribution to these attacks, or is it merely another mistaken case of: “Let’s stir up them Libruls”. Part of the reason I admittedly first attacked you here was that we’ve had through the years repeated instance of people beginning to comment here with the assumption that this is a “liberal” blog-site. It isn’t and never has been. For some though, not familiar with the range of Professor Turley’s critiques of people from all sides of the political spectrum, they see the defense of civil liberties in the majority of his posts and assume that is liberal. It is truly strange how the defense of civil liberties has become a liberal proposition in so many minds.
First, congratulations on a rebuke well done by Mr. Stephens.
Second, what mespo and OS said. Coulter is a sociopathic sideshow barker.
Third, for the whiners, one cannot build a house without cutting timber. If you want a circle of people singing Cumbaya and lavishing each other with unmerited praise just so as to not “hurt their feelings” I suggest you don’t want free speech at all. It’s messy and contentious by nature. If your ideas and statements are meritorious based on content, they will withstand critical scrutiny. If not, rest assured that those who do stand for free speech and understand not just the right but the consequences of it will continue to stand by your right to say whatever you please all the while exercising our right to free speech in challenging what you say by any means we please up to and including deconstruction. If that presents a problem for you, that’s your problem. Free speech is a big pants game. Wear ‘em or accept that you’re perpetually going to be offended.
This is the link to ABC story on Emanuel apology: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/rahm-apologizes-for-privately-calling-liberal-activists-retarded/
Can you give out any links where Coulter has apologized, for anything, she has said?
That is the difference. Brooklyn Bridge Coulter used it again In September, after Obama made a video about disability issues, Coulter tweeted, “I had no idea how crucial the retarded vote is in this election
(Is this a republican ideology: In August, GOP official Jim Roddey told a bad joke at an election victory party that referred to Obama supporters as being “mentally retarded.”)
It is despicable that these terms are used as joke material and are bad excuses for political discourse. As public figures, Coulter and Roddey, or anyone who posts or says every harmful epithet that comes to their mind should know better — and we as a society should hold them accountable for their mishaps.
http://www.usforacle.com/poor-word-choice-offensive-and-disrespectful-1.2782814
“It is truly strange how the defense of civil liberties has become a liberal proposition in so many minds.”
It truly does make one wonder what Eisenhower would think of it all, Mike. It should give those on the right with a conscience serious pause about the direction of their alleged leadership.
“To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush’s Crawford ranch, … It’s the strangest method of grieving I’ve seen since Paul Wellstone’s funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.” -Ann Coulter
“No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.” -John Franklin Stephens
“She combines sex and politics – a powerful aphrodisiac for the frustrated conservative crowd who feign propriety in public but lust in private. She’s Sarah Palin with a vocabulary!”
Mespo,
I don’t doubt the truth of this, but I note that in my single days I went to bed with many beautiful women, sometimes sadly due to the urgent call of lust, rather than reason. My attraction to women has always been their faces and what they showed. I can categorically state that both women’s faces betray a rather nasty quality that I’ve never found appealing, nor stimulating. From my psychotherapeutic knowledge I’ve always felt that men attracted to either of them basically were those “Alpha Males”, who in private dreamed of being dominated by a woman in NAZI regalia.
“She is a cartoon that plays a buffoon, while dancing with spite in heels.
Saying her say suffers her soul, to be mired in multiple weals”.
Technically and honestly this is sad. One can not promote bitterness and spite without also welcoming it inside. Doing it for profit is an even deeper self flagellation.
Bitterness and Spite,.. Only its Owner Truly Bites.
Unfortunately, the parents of Massachusetts (the USA….all 50 states) are not aware that they are not only fighting the School Districts, but they are fighting federal Judges and Justices on the Supreme Court who say one thing, and do another!
They are totally unaware of the vast hypocrisy and how they are made pawns: How they are set-up and mocked and scorned:
How the Special Education statues and the U.S. Constitution no longer means a thing! But God is watching!
The u.s judicial system is one of utter chaos and lawlessness!
How do you respond to the eloquency of Mr. John Franklin Stephens? There is so much I can say, but still I cannot match his articualte and refined words of wisdom.`
“No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.”
Ofcourse the Coulters, and the Justices (ON THE U.S SUPREME COURT) who give lip service to the Special Education statues they pretend to buy…i.e. the Winkleman Decision (and we know it is ONLY LIP SERVICE) because when mothers like me go after their rights, these guys (and gals) provide The Cover of destruction and nightmare: The porn and death-threats, jail-time and illegal removal of the child so that a School District attorney can be triumphant at the child and parent’s expense!
GOD IS WATCHING. AND HE WATCHES AS YOU QUIETLY SEND THE MURDERER TO KILL THE MOTHER …UNDER COVER TO THE NH STATE ATTORNEY!
The child that the parent (me) had hopes to over-come the in-born obstacles thus OVERCOMING! let’s hear the words again!
“No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.”
FYI: My comments are being edited by the NH attorney Jeanne M. Kincaid
Odd that people insisted that ‘shock jocks’ like Howard Stern be banned from public radio for using swear words….but real riders of the ‘shock’ wave of outrage and making money using ordinary words in an utterly profane, obscene manner…like Ann Coulter get away with it.
The Republicans like a “circus” such as she provides. But America should keep in mind they have no intention of serving up the “bread” that should go with it to keep the ever poorer masses subdued.
Ann better STAY skinny, otherwise, when the time comes to ‘eat the rich’….she will find out what happens to unwanted circus animals in hard times.
>> Come join us someday at Special Olympics. See
>> if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.
Well written and wise words, Stephens, but you wasted your time.
Coulter and her ilk would lock you and others behind walls and sterilize you. It would make the “Lost Children” of Romania look like a positive thing.
Here’s a Randy to all you Ann Coulter want to B’s.
Mr. Stephens’ response to Ann Coulter is powerful criticism without being mean.
Ms. Coulter could learn a lot from him.
There’s a lot of mean and nasty in the world right now, thank G*d there is also a lot of John Franklin Stephens…….
Coulter should never have called Obama a retard for a number of reasons. My issue is that there is way too much sensitivity and wussiness out there. How about the “sticks and stones” attitude making a resurgence? If Coulter wants to insult the President then she is no different than some of the regulars on this blog that hurl hurtful invectives against those whom they disagree with. If someone calls you an azzhole then say “back to you and even more” and end it there. Did Coulter call the Pres a retard because she thinks he has Down’s? No, she must have thought the word has a large insult quotient to hurt. A power word if you will. Give it less power and ignore it. Prof Turley recently declared the “end of free speech”. So why the outrage over this? A bit duplicitous don’t you think? If Mr. Stephens reacts badly towards this word he must identify with this word. He doesn’t, so what’s the big deal? If someone calls me a retard I ignore it. The power is neutralized. Nigger doesn’t mean so much to blacks because they call each other that. It’s the mean intention of those using it as an insult that is the rub. Irish don’t care about being called a Mick or potato xx, or similar. They don’t give a crapl If one is called a Viking is that so bad? Maybe it should be. Vikings made their name not by spreading peace eathru the world. They were great at the rape, pillage and plunder of many peoples … including the Irish. Yet hundreds of schools and colleges name the Vikings as their team name. Really? Do those schools support the rape of women and the murder of their rivals?
So buck up. Stop behaving as a victim when someone acts like an idiot. OOPS … I didn’t mean to be insulting and hateful to those who are not as smart (or process info more slowly) as most of you regulars.
ElaineM,
Above you go after Enoch because, as I understand you (it was a short comment), he says twice if you criticize her then the search for sinners must not stop with her but contuinue with yourself, family, friends, etc.
While a bit awkward to handle, it is a correct way to judge. But one subject at a time, you and I say. But what he claims to note (I believe) is that we never pursue the others guilty of the same issue.
I’m personnaly sure that we do, but refrain from it within the JT family for reasons I won’t discuss now.
He agains abandons reality and pursues the ideal. Uselessly.
You and I don’t disagree as much as we have a different view on him. I’d like to know on what basis you condemn him visavis his comments on Coulter.
BTW. There was a sequel with Bill Clintor showing how things are, and not how the conservatives lie that they are on FAUX news interview—-on the sequelae offerings after your video of Coulter on “widow complaints after 9/11″. Enjoy it. Great.
Geeba Geeba says: Prof Turley recently declared the “end of free speech”. So why the outrage over this?
Included in the right to free speech is the right to be outraged.
I notice recently that the people who blog here regularly have been called out as calling names, hurling insults, etc by some whose names you don;t (I don’t) see that often.
It is rare that the debates here, from my perspective at any rate, result in more then reasoned and intelligent debate, posting of videos to make thier points, etc. Read here irregularly and you may end up coming to an argument between some folks but given the whole of the engagement here that is a negligible occurence.
(not that anyone here needs my defending)
Geeba Geeba,
“Prof Turley recently declared the “end of free speech”. So why the outrage over this?”
*****
Coulter exercised her First Amendment right of free speech when she made that comment about the President–and we are exercising our free speech rights to criticize her for it–and for all the other crass and outrageous remarks she has made in the past.
BTW, who has played the victim here in commenting on this post?
leejcaroll,
Needed or not, you did a fine job.
Elizabeth Campbell,
Thank you for your words.
And let me repeat Mr Stephen’s:
“No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.”
Of course, the idea strikes me. Loving life comes from overcoming, not from being favored.
Wow, Coulter and her whole party were beaten by a lazy retard, even though they had more money to campaign with? How useless and stupid must they BE?
Coulter advertises the fact that she is ultimately a loser. And like losers who cannot face their own problems, she grabs at the solution of insulting others to try to feel superior to them. She’s what some call “cute” but my verdict is: She’s as intelligent and admirable as a box of rocks.
Well done Geeba.
Elaine is right that Coulter has a right to say anything she wants, but her critics have the same right.
My problem with her, and people like Trump, and others, is that they are losers but ‘win’ by all the rewards we call winning in the US.
If Ann Coulter apologizes for her remarks about Obama, it will be for the exact same reason, and with the exact same sincerity that Rahm Emanuel did for his “f**king retard” remarks about liberals; that is, because of a cold, calculated assessment that she will gain more from the apology than loose by it.
Yes, Ann Coulter – eyes like windows into hell – is indeed the embodiment of social cancer, and it shows in every aspect of her from her sickly face to her emaciated body to her twisted malevolent thought process. She is utterly possessed by hatred and at this point owes her existence to it, financial and otherwise. But she is nothing more cynical or ruthless or hateful than Obama and his administration including Rahm Emanuel. She hasn’t, for instance, trashed the fifth amendment of our constitution for her own personal sense of “empire”, nor killed four year olds as collateral damage while keeping total secrecy regarding any possible justification for doing so, nor created “Disposition Matrices” in the “f**king cloud” to watch and record every man woman and child in this country under the assumption that in an Obama style democracy, every US citizen is a budding potential terrorist and can be eliminated from the pursuit of liberty, happiness and yes even life at the whim of the executive “commander in chief” not only in this administration but in others going forward that some here might not pay such fantastical homage to going forward..
Geeba Geeba,
I could be wrong, but I feel that you missed the point with Coulter’s and other repug’s use of “retard”.
To me it is as “Ed” and the Professor said:
“retard” is code for dumb Nigxxx, ie the whole race group, and the whole of which who will support Obama, if “we” can’t disenfranchise/votedefraud(etc. It, referred to the President, confirms their first held positions from 2008 or earlier. He does not, can not and will not do as a President of our “white” country.
And it is use as a battlecry to the troops who understand the code word, and they are many otherwise they would not be using it right now so profusely.
Get the troops off the golfcourse/pools and to the polls.
Sincerely hope that helps.
Myself, I have never been so proud since JFK, and even he had faults, but mostly women ones, not Obama’s flora.
Genetically we are not races. We are not different species. We are like dogs (again), each different sizes, colors, etc. Race—-a stupid idea.
unfortunately Ann Coulter is not alone in vulgar choice of words. I heard my President use the term ‘tea baggers’ when referencing members of the tea party and label his opponent Mitt a bull shi**er. Then there is Reverend Wright, Sean Hannity, etc who make a living with hate speech. People may choose words as they wish, and we have the right and perhaps obligation to call them to task and hold them accountable.
MikeS,
Yesterday I found a simile to describe my once too constant approach to sex, and I suspect that of many others’ liasons too.
It is simply eating the icing before sampling the cake.
Not really knowing emotionally the other person, then
intercouse is a heightened form of mutual masturbation.
That women are also so compelled makes it no better.
But we do eat at McD occasionally, slack our thirsts, read a poor book at the beach, etc. But all the time looking for a quick lay, as I often did, which time could have been spent looking for a better one is time wasted, and experiences left unachieved—–and of what magnitude we are left to guess.
Tea baggers was their original choice of nomenclature until someone explained it to them. That they grew to regret it is their problem. That many think it is simply apropos of their extremist and ignorance fueled political pronouncements is another issue.
Tricksy:
Re teabaggers. That is a term that has come into common usage as a reference to the Tea Party subset of the GOP. Not very flattering, but I have several even more colorful terms for them.
As for the President calling Mitt a BS creator, it is correct that he has said Mitt has made untruthful and inconsistent statements, but I do not believe he used the word you claimed. I don’t think it happened the way you claimed. Linkee thingee please? Since practically every public utterance of the Prez is on YouTube, that should not be hard for you if true.
The Prez is not anywhere in the league of Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilley and company when it comes to stoking hatred.
On the other hand, I am sure that a former community organizer has learned a colorful vocabulary, but he would have to work at it to come up to the standards of Presidents Andrew Jackson, U.S.Grant, Teddy Roosevelt or Harry Truman.
I forgot and left out Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Do vice presidents count? Say, like Dick Cheney’s famous advice to Sen. Patrick Leahy–on the Senate floor no less.
Gene H. :
“Tea baggers was their original choice of nomenclature until someone explained it to them.”
Which is exactly why I continue to use it, and so should others. It was their choice of word, and it’s highly embarrassing to them. There’s no reason to stop using it, especially considering their ignorance and gay-hating views.
It is probablly not right or fair to call someone an idiot anymore. Now take that guy out in Mizzoura running for the Senate who thinks that a woman who is raped can ward off pregnancy somehow by her indignation or whatever. In Mizzoura, and I know this for a fact, some folks call him an idjit. Now, idjit is a slang term for idiot and is perhaps fair and balanced. But either word is a bit rough on those folks out there who were not born with a full mental deck. Same with “retard”. We need a kinder, gentler, word for the idjits of the world. Coulter is a “friggin Akin”. In this instance, she “pulled an Akin”.
Tricksy,
I have to echo OS’s request for some documentation of your wild claim. The President did not use the word that you referenced, but if you have the tape or the link to a reputable source, let’s see it.
the Tea bagger has, as I understand it, the upper hand so to speak.
Tea is brown, bag is what we know it is. Hey, even someone who is not hep can (maybe) figure it out.
Gays who dig blacks?
OTOTOTOT
My laundress today has a father, 45, full professor at Karolinska Institute on genetically caused cancer and a microbiologist. He’s going to leave research, and go over to teaching at junior college. Reason: “existential” (she called it that) problems from being so deep and no one understanding what you are saying or doing. Said to be common problem among researchers there. He feels communication with the young as being important to him. Funds for researching was replied with that Karolinska had oodles.
“I heard my President use the term ‘tea baggers’ when referencing members of the tea party and label his opponent Mitt a bull shi**er.”
Tricksy,
Can you supply me with links to the fact the the President used those exact words in that context?
enochwisner
How dare you compare anyone here to the low life, Ann Coulter. No one with a brain has to bear that kind of comparison. Teabaggers are not equals of anyone on this board regarding intelligence and thoughful (versus her overtly hateful) commentaries . Is that clear enough? And with the exception of our host, no one on this board is given free air time. Coulter uses hers to spew teabagger nonsense and hate.
Bron,
Your view (
) may be the correct one, ie T-bagger, topbagger, etc.
Anybody here seen the Mapplethorpe exhibition? It was
here at the Fotgraphic Museum for 3 months. Indirect introduction to Patti Smith’s book on the two of them.
Wish it had been a permanent one, as it like so many things serve effectively as a litmus paper of your development as a person.
For a woman who did so well during her educational years, I am somewhat surprised that she chose a career that requires so little effort. Perhaps this was the surest path to the spotlight she could find.
Blouise, Obama has a little tick up in the polls going on so they are out in force today. Trump’s announcement was such a big disappointment for them.
Women are accepted in this society as celebrities, stars,etc. As honest achievers in matters of substance—-seldom.
She is probably developing a cure for cancer on the side as a secret avocation. A replacement for Palin she is not.
Jonathan Alter interview for his book:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/05/president-obama-gop-opposition-to-stimulus-helped-to-create-the-teabaggers/
A woman who dated Dinesh D’ Souza, the devout married Christian with a daughter and who went to the Christian family values conference to share his Christian values with his fiancee who is also married to another man and lied their about his adultery knows everything about what retard means.
Mike – I’m sorry if my comment re. Jewish scoffing at the likes of Coulter offended you. I taught in the Vien Yeshivah in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, though, and lived in an apartment in the house of the Pupa Rebbe on Keap Street there. My son’s maternal family are Lubavitch hasidim, going back to the times of the Ba’al haTanya. My history is somewhat complex, and irrelevant to discuss here; but, I promise you, I have at least not less foundation for my comment as you may have for yours. If you are right in your Jewish milieu, please accept the possibility that my exposure to Jews, Judaism and prevailing attitudes is at least not less considerable, and my comments therefore, possibly, just as accurate as yours.
Obama’s ‘bullshitter’ remark could signal campaign plan to target Romney
Obama campaign spokesman warns people not to be ‘distracted by the word’ but says language raises issues of trust
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/oct/25/barack-obama-bullshitter-romney?newsfeed=true
Excerpt;
An off-hand and off-colour remark by Barack Obama may have signalled a decision by his campaign to go nuclear on Mitt Romney’s shifting ideological track record.
In an interview with Rolling Stone, conducted by celebrated presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, Obama labelled Romney a “bullshitter” – and rather than backing away from the comment, a senior Obama campaign adviser said it raised “trust” issues with Romney’s candidacy.
Brinkley’s interview recorded a conversation between Obama and Eric Bates, the executive editor of Rolling Stone. Bates told Obama that his six-year-old daughter had a message for the president: “Tell him: you can do it.” Obama replied with a grin:
You know, kids have good instincts. They look at the other guy and say, ‘Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell’.
Asked to explain Obama’s remark, spokesman Dan Pfeiffer told reporters that he hadn’t seen the article, but went on to say: “Trust is a very important part of the election. The president is someone who says what he means and does what he says, and Governor Romney’s answers in the debates on domestic issues and foreign policy raise real questions about that.”
Malisha and Elaine –
Not being as bad as someone is a question of degree. That Coulter is is a public figure may exacerbate her transgressions, but it does not improve our own. Idealist takes exception with me because I continually return to principles, rather than deal with realities. I cannot apologize for his very accurate observation: I believe that principle is far more important even than life itself. Imagine how much mankind would not have achieved if not for others before us who did not believe very much the same.
enochwisner,
What are my transgressions? And how, pray tell, does one “improve” one’s transgressions?
You claim to have principles? Is one of your principles standing in judgment of those who dare criticize the likes of Ann Coulter? Why not look for a more upstanding individual to come to the defense of?
and repubs want it to stay that way for honest acheivers, if women, equal pay is no good for them – keep em poor, pregnant and at home waiting to serve their man dinner “If” (as Romney said in debate “they have to work),
Off Topic:
Romney rejected new birth certificates for gay parents
As governor, he ordered review for each child
By Murray Waas | Globe Correspondent
October 25, 2012
http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/10/24/mitt-romney-overruled-state-agency-and-rejected-new-birth-certificates-for-children-born-gay-parents/TqOHBb99V98H6nGQqUQrjO/story.html
Excerpt:
It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law.
But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.
He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.
Divisions between the governor’s office and state bureaucrats over the language on the forms and details about the extraordinary effort by the Republican governor to prevent routine recording of births to gay parents are contained in state records obtained by the Globe this month.
Deliberations about the policies, including dozens of exchanges about the marriages and births of individual families, are recounted in e-mails and legal memos sent between the governor’s office and lawyers at the Department of Public Health, which oversees the Registry of Vital Records.
The practice of requiring high-level legal review continued for the rest of Romney’s term, despite a warning from a Department of Public Health lawyer who said such a system placed the children of same-sex parents at an unfair disadvantage.
ElaineM,
A reasonable point of view. But I will still cling to the POV that when we criticize others, then we must consider our own failings as persons or societies.
Enoch, he goes that way admitted just above for reasons of principle. I do it for reasons of our shared humanity.
He was not defending Ann Coulter, any proof otherwise?!
He was calling attention to our not putting all of us under the microscope. Which I again criticise for not being realistic. Do I support him? Not at all.
In general to all, I do not feel that principles take
over from the demands of reality, which Enoch does.
Philosophy and principles in my mind have been used as rules of thumb, excuses to cover the lack of our understanding our world, and expecially our mind.
They were and are solely a map, one of many of reality as we can conceive of it.
Everyone could solve the Coulter problem if they just simply ignore her. Don’t post or re-post her stuff. Don’t respond to these posts here. Do you think JT would keep posting stuff on her if nobody responded. No, I don’t think he would .
We are feeding her venom by responding, reacting, over-reacting, our outrage, blah, blah, blah. STOP FEEDING HER BY YOUR ATTENTION TO HER MALICE AND VENOM. STOP IT!!!
PS They are also a form of reductio ad absurdum when considering the multifacets of reality and life.
To give an example from each of your bodies.
I was considering what questions I would like to put to the researcher I mentioned elsewhere about genetics and cancer.
Consider that you have 10 trillion cells in your body. Consider that they reproduce by division by at least 25 times. This gives at least 250 trillion opportunities to produce a cancer cell. Now to find this needle in a haystacks origin to being different in the relatively few genes we each have, is no small problem. (We have fewer genes than a plum tree!)
One which philsophy or advanced logics provides little help.
idealist,
None of us is without fault. Are you suggesting that no one should criticize another person unless he/she confesses to his/her sins/transgressions first? You’ve criticized me in the past. As I recall on one occasion you even called me pitiful. Is that an example of your “shared humanity?”
Old Nurse,
Our silence would be useless. Just as silence is in combatting other ills in our land.
She has attained her fame without our attention. Now we hope to quench it by our attention. Who knows a ground swell made an effetive end to a famed BS-er just this last year.
Elaine – The comment referred (dare I say it?) to a principle. If you are guilty of no transgressions (I’d like to meet such a person if any such exist), I could not have been speaking about you. If you are guilty of any transgressions, you would know it, it would be your duty to improve yourself in the recollection of them and none of the above are any of my business – except to hope that this describes your general mode of living. It’s how society improves itself: one person at a time, being honest about their own shortcomings and working to improve them.
Which brings me to your other question, “how…does one ‘improve’ one’s transgressions?” They don’t. Those transgressions, subject to the principle recently enunciated, improve the one.
ElaineM,
Much water, I hope, has passed under the bridge since I uttered the word “pitiful” on you. Why don’t you give the full quote and context so we may discuss it now and resolve it in an amenable fashion.
Nursing barbs to your heart is seldom a way to remove them.
I mean simply that in my view, we fall here all too often, for reasons that I have given, prey to the need to denigrate our neighbors, our fellow workers, citizens, and world inhabitants. I have not proposed anything more than that we reflect upon this, preferably before we so eagerly hop on the latest bandwagon published here as a blog of denigration of someone.
Shared humanity. Yes, pity applies to us all. And if I did then it was likely in my early career here, when I struck out at many moving topics. But apoligies will not be rendered in a meaningful way without review of the whole context. So will hold that in abeyance.
I am not attacking you ElaineM. I questioned asking for a clarification of how you claim that Enoch was defending Ann Coulter. There is no attack there.
Thanks Elaine, shared
OTOTOTOTOT
For our political geniuses: SwM, Blouise, et al.
“Obama’s current 21-percent-deficit — he trails Romney 59 to 38 percent — would be far harder to overcome, as this year may break a string of increasingly non-white electorates. In 2008, whites made up a record-low 74 percent of all voters; in the latest Post-ABC poll, they made up a similar 75 percent of likely 2012 voters.”
My question why has Obama lost more white votes this time than last time (about double)????
Quote from WP Fix section today headlined Obama losing white voters……
idealist, Of course, he is losing white voters but especially white males. This blog is a microcosm.
idealist, A white southern male that is voting for Obama is a rarity.
I take it back, idealist. The blog is not a microcosm. It is not ethnically diverse.
If you look at that poll, there’s also an economic and education imbalance showing.
“A key element of Romney’s advantage among all whites is that by 55 to 39 percent, more white voters say he, not Obama understands the economic problems people in this country are having. Among whites without college degrees, Romney is up 58 to 35 percent on this score, expanding what was a narrow gap just a few weeks ago. This advantage comes even as 44 percent of white voters say Romney, as president, would do more to favor the wealthy; 38 percent say he would do more to for the middle class.
Most non-college and college-educated whites alike see Obama as doing more to favor those in the middle, not the wealthy.”
And your proof of this is what exactly, Smom?
Quite a few commentators have volunteered over the past that they are not white.
Gene, Most have gone……. I have not seen eniobob in a long time.
idealist,
I don’t dwell on insults/barbs aimed at me on this blog. Have I appeared to hold that comment against you? I just brought it up because of the comment that you addressed to me on this post.
BTW, did I imply that you attacked me?
Was enoch coming to the defense of Coulter by suggesting that anyone who criticizes only Coulter on this post is no better than Coulter? Maybe you don’t construe it as his coming to her defense–but he certainly was impugning the character of any of us who criticized her on this post.
Geeba Geeba
1, October 25, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Coulter should never have called Obama a retard for a number of reasons. My issue is that there is way too much sensitivity and wussiness out there. How about the “sticks and stones” attitude making a resurgence?
——————————————-
Geeba I’m put off by your remark. It demonstrates a huge disconnect in what is actually occurring in our Society. There is a concerted effort in this Country (and UK as well) to make an effective response to the harmful level of bullying that is occurring ….and being subtly taught to the kids of the next generation. The old adage of ‘sticks and stones’ is no longer serving a positive purpose, in fact, in a time when bullying in the schools has reached such massive proportions, and events such as Columbine etc are also increasing, the efforts are focusing on words (namecalling) as being most definitely harmful and how to bring that new enlightened understanding to more people to effect a lessening of this kind of harmful vulgarity in general.
The response made to the denigration by that young man was not only extraordinary, it was superb.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201010/sticks-and-stones-hurtful-words-damage-the-brain
Gene, I liked that lady Erica, but she left.
Gene, Some times the blog has had a Ron Paul edge to it. He did not appeal to very diverse crowd. Quite the opposite was true.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/greg_abbott_un_poll_watchers.php Texas AG threatens UN poll watchers. They need them from what I have observed.
Smom,
The majority of posters never identify their ethnicity. None of the statistics WP/Askimet capture that data either. That the blog is a microcosm is without question, but any statements to the composition of it in re ethnic diversity I think are being made absent anything other than anecdotal data. In fact, the general color blindness of the forum is one of its stronger points. Most don’t care what someone’s skin color is but rather focus on the content of their arguments and assertions. That is in many ways an egalitarian ideal.
Smom,
The Ron Paul edge? Perhaps an edge of those dissatisfied with government SOP under the locked down two party system, but just as many of them are not RP supporters and are simply disenfranchised voters with no discernible party affiliation whatsoever.
“I taught in the Vien Yeshivah in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, though, and lived in an apartment in the house of the Pupa Rebbe on Keap Street there. My son’s maternal family are Lubavitch hasidim, going back to the times of the Ba’al haTanya.”
Enoch,
I grew up in a large Orthodox family on both maternal and paternal sides. Much of my Mother’s family lived in Borough Park, though they are now dead. I was the NYC OCS liaison to the Lubavitcher Community in Crown Heights in the early 70′s. Went to Shul on shabbos at 770 Eastern Parkway and met “The Rebbe”. This summer I played softball with Lubavitchers in the Catskills. I also live in the fastest growing Jewish community in the U.S. You can play all the “Jewish Geography” you want with me, but it doesn’t work. The difference might well be that I also know Jews perhaps much less “frum” than yourself and so have a wider perspective.
Elaine,
Thanks for the link to the Rolling Stone article that quotes Obame as calling Romney a bull_hitter. Very surprising. I agree with the label, I am just surprised that Obama used it on the record. I stand corrected tricksey.
Gene, It seems to me that white male trolls that hate Obama are overrepresented, or maybe they really are hispanic women pretending to be white male trolls.
Are we having a Jew Off? If so, I would like to enter Joan Rivers and Larry David as my female/male tag team and they’ll take on all comers!
Smom,
Well if you want to talk solely about the composition of the troll contingent, that’s another issue altogether.
Absent people volunteering their heritage/ethnicity/race no way to know if we are or are not.
enochwisner wrote:
“All I was getting at is that, if one criticizes Coulter only, and because she’s Coulter, that one is no better than Coulter, herself.”
*****
Why can’t we criticize Coulter? We know her modus operandi. We know the hateful things she has said over the years. We know her and judge her by her past behavior. You judge others who dare to criticize her as no better than she is. How principled of you.
SwM,
I email with enibob all the time. He’s has a job that keeps him pretty busy but I know he reads the blog. I’m pretty sure he was on the blog long before you and I showed up.
Blouise, That’s good to know.
Elaine,
Don’t you just love the judgmentalism that tries to mask itself as fairness.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/state-rep-at-romney-rally-calls-obama-disgusting
rafflaw,
Take my word for it as a resident of Massachusetts–Romney IS a bullsh*tter. That said, I think the president could have used more appropriate language. I was surprised when I read that article. Obama is usually so careful with words.
Gene H.
1, October 25, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Smom,
Well if you want to talk solely about the composition of the troll contingent, that’s another issue altogether.
———————————————————-
Ahem …
Blouise,
“Don’t you just love the judgmentalism that tries to mask itself as fairness.”
Sure do!
Shandra, You are in a troll class of your own.
Shanda,
I should have said “usual troll contingent”. You are everything but usual.
Elaine,
I agree.
I wish he would have said phu*king bullsh*ter.
This says the “bullsh*ter” was off-the-cuff AFTER the interview.
Brinkley recounts a conversation between Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates & President Obama that took place after the interview wrapped up. In part, it went like this: “‘Thought about lowering the voting age?’ Bates joked. ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullsh*tter, I can tell.”
My comment is in moderation. Can you clear?
Eeyore,
There are four or five words that will get blocked. I cannot remember all of them, but do remember that one of them is “b@st@rd.” If you are using a naughty word, use @ and $, etc, strategically. Also, WordPress will not allow more than two links in a single comment. If you had too many links, or a forbidden word, you might repost with some editing. Otherwise, your comments will remain in moderation limbo.
Sadly,the following is not written by me, Happily, there is something to offend most everyone. Mostly, I cheered – god knows I need it.
Dear Red States:
We’re ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we’ve decided we’re leaving: “Legitimate rape.” is almost reason enough!
We in California intend to form our own country and we’re taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren’t aware that includes New York, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of the Northeast.
We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America (E.S.A).
To sum up briefly:
You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby Jindal and Todd Akin.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole’ Miss.
We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs.
You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that the E.S.A. will be pro choice and anti war and we’re going to want all our citizens back from Afghanistan at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they’re apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose and they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home.
We wish you success in Afghanistan, and possibly Iran as well, but we’re not willing to spend our resources in these sorts of pursuits.
With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country’s fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation’s fresh fruit, 95% of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech, Long Beach State, CAL, San Jose State and MIT.
With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bast*rds believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
We’re taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Citizens of the Enlightened States of America
ElaineM,
If my new costume of “sweetness and light” causes you to regurgitate old barbs, it would not seem improbable that they are sticking you someplace. It was you that brought “pitiful” up, not I. To what purpose, if not to expose the devil costume under the other?
And you still do not offer an explanation of how you interpret Enoch as negatively as you summarize now. Please cite his words that give a foundation to your conclusions.
I desire to keep a position of mutual respect, more than sharers of recipes and local dialects (“hahbah”). Please keep that in mind. Don’t look for ill-will. I always did when contemplating GeneH diatribes, but now don’t.
In fact, I try to keep that always in mind here.
Otherwise my understanding is quickly debilitated.
And the way I write is mot one of affectation, but of impediment. So disregard the apparent stilts, that I seem to wear. Their length and awkwardness vary from day to day—-an uncontrollable phenomenon.
ElaineM,
Rolling back looking for a point to continue my day after readings, I came upon this by you to Enoch.
——————
“You claim to have principles? Is one of your principles standing in judgment of those who dare criticize the likes of Ann Coulter? Why not look for a more upstanding individual to come to the defense of?” ElaineM.
——————–
One: We all stand to be judged here, based on how others see us and evaluate what we say.
Two: Jesus did not defend the Good Samaritan, he let the actions speak for themselves. But he did use the sinners, very often as examples to which he came to the defense of in speech. He not only defended them, he associated with them, which was a defilement of any righteous jew at that time.
Defending the worthy requires no virtue or courage.
Defending the humanity of a sinner does.
ElaineM,
Interpret matters as you wish, not much I can do, and thus have no ambition to effect of your own deliberations.
To bring up a word with negative connotation, “pitiful” without giving context, would seem to imply that it was part of an attack or at least an unfair negative judgement.
So you laid out the unspecified bait and I took it. Grats.
Further:
“Maybe you don’t construe it as his coming to her defense–but he certainly was impugning the character of any of us who criticized her on this post.”
You are here using the familiar tactic of implying that I insult the whole of the other members of the blog, and strive thereby to enlist their support for your cause.
Most are easily reached, unfortunately, by such tactics—-as any politician knows.
Now I have reached the conclusion that you address me not to confine and solve our differences, but instead expand it so as to avoid solving it by discussion of the original points of difference. Does my every word of rebuttal raise new ire in you? It would seem so.
You do avoid still my original query to you, not giving it an answer.
Did I come out in defense of Enoch?, That I have disavowed already.
But some will so interpret my actions. To my detriment, but such aspects have never steered me so far in my life.
Just as ignoring, in my view, unbased and inaccurate accusations by you to Enoch, have and will not be ignored ever. Conflict avoidance is not why I came here.
If people approve, fine. If not, also fine. I am here to learn, not teach. But I have always not hesitated, to some teachers’ despair, to ask questions. Learning by rote or with a view to polish the teacher’s apple has never been my path. (and am not implying it is anyone’s here either—just declaring my own position).
In all amicability.
“Elaine M.
1, October 25, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Blouise,
“Don’t you just love the judgmentalism that tries to mask itself as fairness.”
Sure do!
————————–
Go ahead and exchange knowing smiles. Nothing new there.
But will you turn around and look in the mirror, realy look, as you do when searching after new wrinkles.
I would not be surprised if you both found a good portion of judgementalims in disguise, but also a bit much of -righteousness also. They usually ride in pairs.
Gathering the tee-hee group for a mutual support session, are you girls?
Typical human frailty from childhood, never leaves some.
Egality is great, let’s all do it, and until attacined fight on.
But since our funding and effectuality is insufficiaent, we should perhaps try the method proposed by Enoch—–ie
start within yourself. Eventually we all may merge seamlessly–in 10,000 years.
Nonsense.
People judge each other all the time. That person is nice, that person is naughty, that person is smart, that person is stupid, that person had really got it together, that person is insane, that person is pretty, that person is ugly. It’s what we do as a species.
The admonishment of “Judge not lest ye be judged” from Matthew 7:1 does not mean “don’t judge”. The moral lesson behind it and the mote and beam metaphor is about avoiding hypocrisy in your judgements and accepting that in pointing out the faults of others there is equity in counter-criticism. Just so, hypocrisy is something to be avoided in general, but in the practice of free speech this lesson is reflected in the principle that one is entitled to have and express any opinion they wish but that opinion is not free from criticism nor does the speaker have a right not to be offended. Criticism can be either constructive or destructive but that is in the mind of receiver. It is what it is, but what you do with it is up to you.
Example: I don’t want others making sexual choices for me. It interferes with my right of self-determination and my natural proclivities. Ergo, I do not judge people for their sexual orientation (unless it’s children – which is evil – or animals – which is just ridiculous). Why? What two consenting adults do is their business, not mine, just like what I do is none of their business. A perfect lack of hypocrisy.
What I do judge is when people think it is their business to interfere with the sexual lives of others engaged in consensual sex because they are (usually) religious busy bodies. They want to try to oppress other under the guise of their right to free exercise and that violates the principle of “your rights end where others begin”. It’s a valid principle of equity and egalitarianism in the examination and execution of individual rights. Ff people don’t like my criticisms they are perfectly free to respond in kind.
Elaine is free to criticize Coulter however she pleases, but the hypocrisy isn’t there when Elaine is not guilty of the very criticisms she levels against Coulter. Just so, Enoch is allowed to say what he likes in defense of Coulter but quite simply not all defenses are meritorious and one based on “look to yourself before you criticize” is the equivalent of calling Elaine a hypocrite for her attack on Coulter and her actions, in short, it’s ad hominem and not used for impeachment but rather to simply attack the speaker instead of the argument.
It’s a common troll tactic on Enoch’s part.
Just because some buy it as some kind of “principled” stand because they “just want everyone to play nice” or some other such hooey that is in fact a limitation on free speech instead of seeing Enoch’s weak tactic for what it is based on its argumentative form simply means they haven’t learned the lessons of either good argumentation or how propagandists work.
Ad hominem attacks have there place. They are not the same thing as simple insult. This is a fine example of the misuse of ad hominems that don’t impeach the speaker (Elaine is in fact not a hypocrite as Elaine is not a Succubus-like media personality spreading hate with almost every pronouncement across a wide swath of mediums because some vile bitter old rich white guys think she’s a cute cheerleader when she’s really simply a hateful imbecile much like her supporters) and are meant to distract from the argument/criticism proper by attempting to shift focus to the speaker.
Anyone not a Succubus-like media personality spreading hate with almost every pronouncement across a wide swath of mediums because some vile bitter old rich white guys think she’s a cute cheerleader when she’s really simply a hateful imbecile much like her supporters can criticize and judge Ann Coulter for being such all they damn well please both ethically without danger of being a hypocrite and legally as a matter of free speech.
Nice snowstorm GeneH.
All I ask and still ask, unanswered, is what specifically of what Enoch said, motivated her condemnation of him.
And that was expressed as and is obvioudly a neutral question.
All else since has bes been to her “seeing” me as an attacker, as of olden times, ie mine here.
Not having succeeded in getting an answer I retire content, Not all tasks can be achieved.
No snarks, haven’t been any on my part the whole time. Although some have managed to implicate me with several, falsely so.
Defending unpopular causes is one mistake. Defending those who come out with trolling the thread away to other themes, which happened to be mine too, is no reason to defend the cause just then.
Apologies? No, to myself only. For not thinking before speaking. Came to learn I claimed.
Bye for now. Read you later. Errands.
You got an answer. That you did not like it or (more likely) did not understand it is not my problem. Believe it or not, whether you in particular understand what I write is not only not a primary (or even secondary) concern of mine but it presumes (wrongly) that when I address you that I am necessarily speaking to you or for your particular benefit.
I explained quite clearly what got Enoch’s trollery attacked, id707.
I’ve learned not all trolls are trolls…. They just appear that way….
AY,
That is why there are true trolls (paid trolls or those who do the work freely for their own ideological reasons) and the trollish (others who do the work unwittingly either out of ignorance and/or being deceived by others working against their best interests). Both use trollery (bad logic, suspect argumentation, misinformation) as their methodology. But being a true troll is an act of specific intent. For example, Enoch is shaping up to be a purposeful volunteer for the Koch manipulated teabagger agenda. Bdaman on the other hand simply often didn’t know what he’s talking about and/or his logic was just wonky. Both are trollish, but only one is a true troll by the mens rea standard.
idealist,
You wrote: “You are here using the familiar tactic of implying that I insult the whole of the other members of the blog, and strive thereby to enlist their support for your cause.”
My response: I wasn’t talking about you. I was referring to Enoch.
*****
You wrote: “Now I have reached the conclusion that you address me not to confine and solve our differences, but instead expand it so as to avoid solving it by discussion of the original points of difference. Does my every word of rebuttal raise new ire in you? It would seem so.”
My response: That’s your perception. I left comments on this post. You chose to address me to explain about Enoch and his prinicples. I responded to you. I’m not looking for an argument–just expressing my opinion.
*****
You wrote: “Just as ignoring, in my view, unbased and inaccurate accusations by you to Enoch, have and will not be ignored ever. ”
My response: What are the unbased and inaccurate accusations that I made about Enoch?
*****
You wrote: “Go ahead and exchange knowing smiles. Nothing new there.
But will you turn around and look in the mirror, realy look, as you do when searching after new wrinkles.
“I would not be surprised if you both found a good portion of judgementalims in disguise, but also a bit much of -righteousness also. They usually ride in pairs.”
My response: Enoch was the one who claimed to be so principled. He suggested that anyone who criticized Ann Coulter was as bad a she. I’d call that being judgmental–not principled. That’s why I agreed with Blouise when she wrote the following: “Don’t you just love the judgmentalism that tries to mask itself as fairness.”
GeneH
“Succubus-like media personality spreading hate with almost every pronouncement across a wide swath of mediums because some vile bitter old rich white guys think she’s a cute cheerleader when she’s really simply a hateful imbecile much like her supporters.” :0
One of my water hole companions has a number of good human being qualities**/ .. but does buy every Coulter book and brags about his desire for her !!!
SHEESH… That’s when I usually order a shot and look for other conversation.
I worked with him for 3 years before I realized he was NOT joking. We seldom talk politics, it is futile. The only way I can talk politics with him is with my fingers in my ears so I can’t hear what he says, and ditto for him. Kinda like what occurs much too often in our current political Red-Blue dichotomy.
That’s supposed to be a
enochwisner 1, October 25, 2012 at 7:10 am
John’s comments are a rebuke to anyone who “races from one snarkey [comment] to the next,” just for the amusement it affords them – or to achieve a completely unjustifiable sense of superiority, take your pick.
It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.
————–
Is there another John on here!??!
Where I come from you don’t have to criticize yourself, there are plenty that will do that for you…and don’t think I haven’t had my turn in the barrel! LoL
As with most I do have opinions, and I do put them out there, but unlike some I don’t carve them in stone. Make a good argument and my mind can be changed…I try to be open minded.
As for my post “someone got a good spanking”, it wasn’t tearing down anyone, it wasn’t a negative against her, it was a positive comment of support for the letter.
(There must be another John on here….)
David Blauw,
Most people are not all one thing or the other. I have a friend who is similar to yours although his particular boogie man is Rush Limbaugh. He’s not a bad guy otherwise, but when it comes to politics and pundits he’s nuts. If Rush said it, it must be right, which as history has proven is rarely the case. Entertainment is not news. I try not to pay attention to most of them personally. They are entertainers. What they say and think is irrelevant other than it impacts what ordinary everyday people might understand as the truth because their celebrity gives their often uninformed or deliberately deceitful opinions more weight than they should were they exposed to critical scrutiny of both their logic and usually cherry picked facts. That’s a long way of saying when it comes to pundits, their specific content is less relevant as it is almost always flawed by ideological spin than their disproportionate effect on society is because of their “status”.
“Anyone not a Succubus-like media personality spreading hate with almost every pronouncement across a wide swath of mediums because some vile bitter old rich white guys think she’s a cute cheerleader when she’s really simply a hateful imbecile much like her supporters can criticize and judge Ann Coulter for being such all they damn well please both ethically without danger of being a hypocrite and legally as a matter of free speech.”
Genes righteous rant bears repetition. This game is a common tactic of tea-baggers and faux Conservative hypocrites. Coulter has made a career out of making vile judgments (i.e. being liberal is un-American) and consequently deserves vilification for her obviously hateful pandering. Those who vilify her specifically are not logically countered by saying words to the effect of: well your side does it to. A hateful act is not mediated because someone could point to a hateful act done by others. An example of this is a terrorist attack on innocents. The act can be rightly condemned in and of itself. Offering evidence that the entity being terrorized has acted similarly, is merely an immature, illogical way of justifying murder.
GeneH,
Just got back.
———–
Gene H.
1, October 26, 2012 at 6:51 am
Nonsense.
People judge each other all the time. That person is nice, that person is naughty, that person is smart, that person is stupid, that person had really got it together, that person is insane, that person is pretty, that person is ugly. It’s what we do as a species.
The admonishment of “Judge not lest ye be judged” from Matthew 7:1 does not mean “don’t judge”. The moral lesson behind it and the mote and beam metaphor is about avoiding hypocrisy in your judgements and accepting that in pointing out the faults of others there is equity in counter-criticism. Just so, hypocrisy is something to be avoided in general, but in the practice of free speech this lesson is reflected in the principle that one is entitled to have and express any opinion they wish but that opinion is not free from criticism nor does the speaker have a right not to be offended. Criticism can be either constructive or destructive but that is in the mind of receiver. It is what it is, but what you do with it is up to you.”
———————
My name did not appear in your comment. But supposing to judge from your later comments to me, one could assume that it sas.
In fact, in relation to me, the whole is a strawman argument.
I have never said that anyone should hold in with judgements. It is quite impossible for all mammals to do. So to suggest an impossible is not something I would do. But it makes a convenient strawman for you to set fire to.
—————
The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant to me, as it does not concern things which I said. I called merely for a clarification. The rest of my exchanges between ElaineM and I is the usual tit for tat exchanges which so many “discussions” deteriorate into here. Misunderstandings are SO easy, now aren’t they?
“All I ask and still ask, unanswered, is what specifically of what Enoch said, motivated her condemnation of him.”
ID707,
To answer that question why not look back at my comments on Enoch’s first response. I think you’re strangely not getting the point that he avoided totally any condemnation of Coulter by pivoting to this endpoint:
“It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.”
Think of the implications of that:
It is hard to criticize Hitler, without criticizing Stalin our ally to.
It is hard to criticize Hitler, without condemning FDR for not bombing the train tracks leading to the death camps.
It is hard to criticize Pearl Harbor, without criticizing FDR for America’s presence in the Pacific Rim.
Hyperbole perhaps given Coulter’s relative importance in the world, but apt examples of this type of logic. Perhaps in my life I have been a really bad person, does that fact keep me from being able to state the truth about the acts of another bad person? I think not. The difference here is I think Elaine is a very good person, just as I think you are and Enoch’s critique was, as I’ve shown, hardly one of a disinterested bystander. By his own words he sees commenting here as “guerrilla warfare”. This specifically indicates that he has a specific agenda, which he is loath to reveal.
ElaineM,
Thanks for your kind and open hearted explanation of how it went from your side. Without details, let me say that I shall ponder but already can say that I accept your presentation.
While it is not solely to your credit, I find the next
step in my development entails two steps actually:
1) Don’t let violation of favorite principles (in my case) lead to questioning others on their use/abuse of them. My admonition of reflection before reacting should apply eqyally to myself.
2) Sometimes, personal considerations override violations by others. I must ask myself also how many times I have been excused in spite of my own violations.
The problem being practicing what I preach.
Mea culpa. Thanks for today.
idealist,
“The rest of my exchanges between ElaineM and I is the usual tit for tat exchanges which so many “discussions” deteriorate into here. Misunderstandings are SO easy, now aren’t they?”
*****
I express my opinion and respond to your questions in the best way that I can. I don’t believe that I have been involved any type of “tit for tat.” I don’t think my responses have “deteriorated” the discussion. Apparently, you don’t agree with or approve of my responses on this post. What would make you happy–that I agree with you and not express my opinion?
id707,
What you do or don’t infer is of little concern to me. If I was talking specifically about you? I would be specific. I have been in the past. There is no reason to change that now.
“It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.”
Huh?
When I go to a theater and see a great performance and I applaud loudly for the performer, must I then think, “It’s hardly appropriate for me to give kudos to this actor if I’m not also willing to give kudos to myself as well”? No.
When I encounter someone who behaves in a wrongful and abusive manner towards me for no reason, and I give them a piece of my mind about it, must I then think, “It’s hardly appropriate for me to oppose this person’s conduct if I will not also call my conduct into question with as jaundiced an eye”? No.
If Ann Coulter has more media opportunities than I do, and than most people in this country do, to jump up and say something she wants ME TO LISTEN TO and she wants ME TO AGREE WITH, must I be willing to criticize myself if I find her way way WAAAAAAAY out of line in what she offered as a public pronouncement from a supposed authority figure?
HELL NO. Even if I’m a total a55hole who soundly deserves EVERYBODY’S CONDEMNATION, I’m free to criticize Ann Coulter without offering up on the altar of “pseudo-equality-based-self-effacement” a little blushing “me too” of mea culpas. When someone deserves a thrashing as much as Ann Coulter does now, I don’t need to put on my hair shirt to administer a few licks of my own.
“It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.”
Mike Spindell,
Why did you assume that “ourselves” was referring to the United States of America? I understood “ourselves” to mean those who post comments on this blog. IOWs, if we’re going to chastise Coulter for saying things that would be offensive to others, why not also hold Mike Spindell accountable for the same when he posts a comment?
I don’t think Coulter intended to offend those who suffer from mental retardation, and I don’t think you intend to offend a bunch of fellow Americans when you call them “teabaggers”. However, if we’re going to hold people accountable for how others may be offended by what is said; shouldn’t it start at home? Your home? My home? This blog?
Speaking for myself, I absolutely intend to insult a bunch of my fellow Americans when I call them teabaggers. Arguments from ignorance, their seeming speciality in matters legal, historical and political, are an insult to us all and the Constitution when they are put forward as if they merit serious consideration. Respect is earned not due and the same goes for derision.
And offense is an individual reaction and a consequence of free speech.
You have no right not to be offended.
Wild Willy, I’m not jumping in here for Mike S, just responding on my own.
We on this blog are quite accustomed to the idea of getting called out for saying something that offends. Goes with the territory. Fine. If I don’t want that I shouldn’t be here blah-blah-blah-ing; I should get down to doing some useful work making this world a better place, clean up an oil spill or something.
So Ann Coulter gets up on her platform and spews her “Retards” speech. So she gets verbally attacked on all sides for it and most notably and most eloquently by John F Stephens, may his name be always remembered! Good for her and Good on him. Anybody else who uses words and gets reactions, fine. Fine with me, fine.
I wouldn’t support anybody responding physically with harmful action to speech that offended them; I do, however, find “speech and responding speech” perfectly A-O-K whether it pleases me or not.
“It is hardly becoming to criticize Ann Coulter if we are not willing to criticize ourselves, too.”
Wild Willie,
Did you notice the quotation marks I put around that phrase? Did you notice the sentences above it where I explained that that phrase came from a comment by EnochWisner? Obviously you didn’t because you attributed that sentence to me. Now perhaps you want to go back and read that entire comment again to inform yourself that you read it wrong and in the processed mis-judged me.
“I don’t think you intend to offend a bunch of fellow Americans when you call them “teabaggers”.
Now in addition to misquoting me your also pretend to read my mind. I definitely intended to offend a bunch of “fellow Americans” who call themselves the Tea Party, yet originally called themselves “Tea Baggers”. I find them offensive and I find what they support inimical to the American Constitution. To me they are a rather offensive lot, that I’ve also written about in the past. year: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/03/the-real-tea-party-not-today%E2%80%99s-tea-party-fakes/ I doubt you will take the time to read what I’ve linked because you obviously haven’t taken the time to read everything I’ve posted on this thread which basically disagrees with your statement here:
“However, if we’re going to hold people accountable for how others may be offended by what is said; shouldn’t it start at home? Your home? My home? This blog?”
and explains why I disagree.
enochwisner 1, October 25, 2012 at 7:43 am
“Ayn Rand / Ann Coulter … same difference.”
Neither true nor fair, Dredd. Rand is wrong enough on real issues to have to invent charges against her she doesn’t deserve – such as the merits of her “objectivism,” and her notion that charity for its own sake is indefensible.
===================================
Both are at least sociopaths, but more likely psychopaths:
(Ayn Rand: Patron Saint of the Plutocracy, quoting Monbiot).
Ode to Ayn Rand and Ann Colder:
UPDATE:
And Ann Coulter doubles down . . .
“When Holmes said that some people believe the word ‘retard’ is as much a slur as the ‘n-word,’ Coulter dismissed her critics as the ‘word police.’
‘Oh, screw them,” she said. ‘That’s what they feel I do? I feel they’re being authoritarian bullying victims.’”
Yeah.
She’s a charmer. For a hateful ignorant cracker. One you’d like to take home to mother. If mom worked at Stormfront. A real keeper. If you collect lesser imps and demons.
Listen up, Ann.
Let’s be clear here: you as a rightwing nutbag entertainer have a right to be just as offensive as you want to be – intentional or not – but you don’t have the right to dictate the reactions of those offended by your ignorant blather, you authoritarian putz. Look to your own jackboots before you whip out that word authoritarian, Axis Sally. That was the very portrait of hypocrisy. If the developmentally disabled find your use of the word retard offensive? It’s offensive. It’s their reaction and they get to decide what it is, not you. End of story. Personally, I don’t need your words to find you offensive in general. Your very existence is adequate to be offensive.
I’m sorry! Did any of this offend you, Whitey? I certainly hope so, Beach Blanket Brown Shirt.
But I kind of doubt it since the world obviously revolves around you and I’m pretty sure you’re your own number one fan since not only do you get to say whatever you want and think there should be no consequence, but that you get to decide what other’s reactions are supposed to be.
Have a day.
GeneH..
Back again. When I said that if bla bla applies to me, then it is a “strawman” since I did not say it. And secondly the “not judge” is an impossibility for all animals, I also said.
Now you come back with some routine GeneH. abuse.
Keep on, it only embroiders your earlier performances.
ElaineM.,
I offered you an apology.
Apparently you reject it as you instead of acknowledging it; came back with further quotes to beat me with.
It should be clear at this point that I have only reflected negatively to the constant beating of neighbors—whether they be next door or next continent.
Schadenfreude (?).
I have never at any time said what you should do. I have, now again, asked you to clarify by citing Enoch, give his words that excited your ire. And you won’t do that.
In view of your refusal to accept an apology, that’s what I offered in return for your extensive analysis of how you reacted to my words and interpreted them, then enjoining you for further action is useless. Schoolmarms!
id707,
Again, what you do or don’t infer is of little concern to me. If I was talking specifically about you? I would be specific. I have been in the past. There is no reason to change that now. It’s not as if I care what you think of me (or indeed much anything else). If you want to take a post not addressed to anyone in particular and make it about you and how abused ol’ po’ lil’ ol’ you is, that only comports with my previous and clearly stated analysis of what I don’t care what you think of me (or indeed much anything else).
Any “abuse” you are currently suffering is self-inflicted and in your own mind.
That’s your problem, not mine, and I’m totally uninterested in it.
Funny, I was offered praise the other day by someone here for these words:
“So recently as yesterday (and most days for that matter) I pointed out that the pleasure of laughing at your neighbor is a shallow one when one should instead be comparing ones own failings instead relative to the same compass/scale/ruler.
It is a basicly daily occurence here at JT’s that at least one blog that day will enable such parades of “better than these dummers” comments.”
————————
And so it was my interpretation that this was what Enoch came out in support of, and then I engaged with ElaineM. over this idea by asking a straight question. Questions are in her mind obviously always from enemies, to judge from her reaction.
Some might ask if the “horrible” Ann Coulter deserves the same consideration as my neighbor. And I must reply “Yes”. Because for the same reason, that one must “judge” and not knee-jerk following what others say, nor what the government says. Do I like or support Ann Coulter? No.
But I listen to her and make my own judgement of her. And I don’t run after her with the pöbel to crucify her in our words and mouths—not because I feel better than the pöbel, but I do as I please.
Parallel example: Free speech applies to pornography—now. But no longer applies to some, as we are finding out.
There is no law against bad mouthing or simple criticism. I just wish I could see less of it and more discussion here.
Amazing, it all started out with a question to ElaineM; Can you….etc. The question was interpreted as a challenge to her right to speak. False interpretation. And then the battle is joined. Amazing.
The only person you are fighting is yourself, id707.
You are the one who has such bad taste in succubi, GeneH.
(I was hoping that someday someone would bring out the term. Don’t forget the men with horns, and the beast with doublebacks. All good fun.)
As for fighting myself, shouldn’t we all be?
“Offering evidence that the entity being terrorized has acted similarly, is merely an immature, illogical way of justifying murder.” MikeS,
Now the children of the Swat Valley in Pakistan thank you for coming to their defense against Mespo727272′s drones.
But more materiel is that you guys still don’t get what Enoch said, IMHO.
I do not believe as some say: he criticizes those who come out against her, he does not say suspend judgement, or whatever the phuck you think he says.
I won’t cite him, but simply say that in my mind he said:
Start where you stand, whether it be in JT-blog, and criticize there, rather than searching far afield.
Now we, none of us or all of us together will have much effect on Ann Coulter’s effect with her despicable words.
But we might have more and even more important effect if we start in our own little group. Not negative feedback, we all get enough of that and more. But positive feedback. Offering of alternatives. Like I presume AA does in their sessions.
But understandably, there is no one here who will endorse nor start a session of onions and roses as it used to be called. Criticising ruins that cozy feeling around the campfire.
So, OK, don’t do it.
But if you are going to attack Enoch, do it on correct grounds. I have several times and at least got an acknowledgement from him for my main point.
That is more than I have ever been accorded by certain dogs here, you NOT included.
I just use you for a launch pad, and you hopefully know that. Some others do too, when I declare my intent.
Thanks again for the link. The modern interpretation is my bag. The Kabbalah less so. Tried it years ago, light explanation, and it did not sing for me.
Mike Spindell,
If you go back and read what I wrote, you will see that I did not attribute the quote to you. If you read what I wrote, the context of the question presented would make any assumed attribution of the quote to you out of the question.
What I posted was a question to you about how you interpreted that quote.
(Instead of accusing me of not reading, maybe next time you’ll take the time to read and comprehend before responding.)
As for the teabagger comment: I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt. I should have assumed that you meant to be offensive. (Which you would have likely also complained about.)
Mike Spindell said [while referring to the Tea Party] ” I find them offensive and I find what they support inimical to the American Constitution.” (That’s one of the ways a quote is attributed to someone.)
How so? How is what they support inimical to the American Constitution? I read your article. You made statements about the current version of the Tea Party, but you never provided justification for it.
Is John Franklin Stephens the antidote to today’s hateful political discourse? Does he have to do it alone? Why don’t people like you (and Gene Howington since he decided to provide an answer) make any effort to curb the hateful political discourse?
idealist707 1, October 26, 2012 at 2:11 pm
ElaineM.,
I offered you an apology.
Apparently you reject it as you instead of acknowledging it; came back with further quotes to beat me with.
*****
I left that response to a previous comment that you had written. After that, I didn’t return to this thread. I had not read your apology. I never reject sincere apologies. You’ll have to forgive me for being away for a while.
We have been busy around here. We’re making sure that we have everything we will need and making sure we batten down the hatches in preparation for the monster storm–nicknamed Frankenstorm–that will likely hit the coastal area where I live in a couple of days.
BTW, I did explain what bothered me about Enoch’s comments.
Elaine,
Good luck with the storm! We’ll be keeping our fingers crossed for you and your family. And that goes for you too, eniobob! Wherever you are! Bob, Esq.? I know he’s ready, but still a hearty well wish in front of Mother Nature being most unpleasant. I know our host is in New Orleans,but for Clan Turley back home, we wish for an uneventful storm as well.
To all our readers and commentators from the East Coast! Be well, be safe, be dry. This too shall pass.
Gene,
I should have mentioned that my daughter and son-in-law are hosting a Halloween party in the barn at their new house tomorrow evening. My husband and I have also been busy grocery shopping and preparing food for the festivities.
I just hope we don’t get hit too hard. We have close friends that live right on the water in Salem.
My experience of hurricanes have been in an armory building at 14 holding radio comm with the flooded coastline of NC. Our winds inland were never higher than 105. Later, behind a cncrete/stone seawall, 12foot high on the Jersey coast near Ft Momnouth, the sight of the 10 foot sea rise from the storm was impressive.
Hope you all do well. Maybe having the kids bring blankets to the party might be a good idea, and add to the excitement. I presume and hope most of you are well-placed. Elaine, I hope you are well up from the “habbah”.
—Just a couple of jokes:
Are the R’s blaming it on Obama, god’s vengance for Obama’s deeds, our abortions, that we have jews here (Ann Coulter), or Obama’s false birth certificate—-besides he is a commmunist and a muslim in secret?
And after Frenkenstorm, what comes next on the scale upwards?
Great…
Thank you wild Willie. I am disillusioned by the tone of responses, which in my mind, is no better than the tone that is subject of the criticism. Venom is poisonous; it does not matter what the name of the carrier is.
I707…I appreciate your contributions to the blog. You speak your truth in the same manner that attracted me JT…quietly and clearly. Allows me to hear better.
Tricksy,
Thanks.
Maybe it has something to do with my NOT being a lawyer.
Necessary evils, but who are distorted or pre-selected by/for their work.
Being essentially free-working professionals, they are attuned to meeting needs of their clients, to the exclusion of all else. That of course makes them naturals to become politicians. Bought is bought. But enough of them.
I appreciated your courage to speak up against the mob here in this particular “rage”—can’t call it a debate. Look forward to more words from you.
Good deed,
Are you aware that your icon/avatar shows ol’ man earth wearing North America as a “comb-over”. “We” can’t afford a Donald Trump hair. Donald has our hair.
Images say so much: Reading a book yesterday, there was a cartoon image of Nixon on the campaign trail, nose to the microphones on the podium, and from a grossly bloated body a stream of diarrhea exploded.
In the author’s note was pointed out the “necessary” hypocritical cooperation between longterm Washington correspondent and the powers they are supposed to hold an eye on and expose to our view.
idealist,
What definition of “mob” did you have in mind when you wrote: “I appreciated your courage to speak up against the mob here in this particular ‘rage’—can’t call it a debate.”
ElaineM,
Use your imagination. If you feel you belong to the rage that is for you to decide. I did not have you in mind.
While not agreeing with your points you were however very willing to offer counterarguments. An exception.
The only problem that I have with you and all who have gone to GeneH school of arguing is that you all ignore the points made by the other party and leave them undiscussed, only replying with your points instead.
Just like the political debates, but the energy released yesterday likened a rage, not even a debate—
excluding you as I said above.
So dissect that and come back again. Cool to see you again here.
How are you and Sandy getting along. Are you all set?
idealist,
What points that were made by “the other party”–whoever that is–did I ignore and leave undiscussed?
Sandy has not hit my area yet. The storm will probably reach here by Monday morning
I wonder what he would say concerning Obama and his comments on Jay Leno where he was talking about his low bowling score and the Special Olympics. I wonder how that one slipped under the radar.
Retard means to impede, slow up, or hinder advance, or accomplishment.why can’t we leave it at that? Obama is not a good leader for our country.why are we assuming that she was calling Obama anything other than the definition of retard? A man hindering the progression of freedom would be a retard by definition.