Coulter Said What?

[BT]

She clearly used the word 'faggot' in reference to Edwards and anyone who claims she did not is making excuses for her.

She used the term faggot in reference to having to go to rehab for not being PC. The whole greys anatomy brouhaha was still fresh in the press and she had referred to it previously.

If i was making excuses for her i would flat out make excuses. But thanks anyway for analysing my motives, saves me the trouble dontcha know.

[hnumpah]

Good thing we have H here to be able to read my mind vs read my type

Maybe you misunderstand me.

I never thought you were objective at all to begin with.

When I said 'I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity...', I was referring to Plane, not you. I believe he had some to lose; you, never.

[sirs]

Good thing we have H here to be able to read my mind vs read my type

Maybe you misunderstand me.  I never thought you were objective at all to begin with.

Well of course.  I'm not H.  H is the objective one around here, and unless one believes as he, well, they can't be objective, even when they're criticizing/condemning actions that H says they're really defending.  Because if one dares support our effort to take on terrorists, you just can't be objective.  Just can't.  Yea, real objective there, H

When I said 'I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity...', I was referring to Plane, not you.

Yea, that explains why it was response to my post...you were really talking to & about Plane.  Gotcha         

[Plane]

Good thing we have H here to be able to read my mind vs read my type

Maybe you misunderstand me.

I never thought you were objective at all to begin with.

When I said 'I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity...', I was referring to Plane, not you. I believe he had some to lose; you, never.

   I am trying to be fair , but I shouldn't claim to be objective .
   

[hnumpah]

Well of course.  I'm not H.  H is the objective one around here, and unless one believes as he, well, they can't be objective, even when they're criticizing/condemning actions that H says they're really defending.  Because if one dares support our effort to take on terrorists, you just can't be objective.  Just can't.  Yea, real objective there, H

Of course they can. Never said they couldn't. And where have I said you were or were not condemning or criticizing actions, or defending them?

You are right about one thing, though. You are not me. Anytime you like, you can quit trying to put words in my mouth or pretend you can read my mind.

Plane used to be able to see through all the BS and see that. Now he's just as partisan as, well, you are. I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity.

Who was the subject of that paragraph? Plane. You were merely a footnote. As it should be.

But you are welcome to believe the world revolves around you, if it makes you feel any better. Just to be clear, that was all about you.

[sirs]

Well of course.  I'm not H.  H is the objective one around here, and unless one believes as he, well, they can't be objective, even when they're criticizing/condemning actions that H says they're really defending.  Because if one dares support our effort to take on terrorists, you just can't be objective.  Just can't.  Yea, real objective there, H

Of course they can. Never said they couldn't. And where have I said you were or were not condemning or criticizing actions, or defending them?

"Plane used to be able to see through all the BS and see that. Now he's just as partisan as, well, you are. I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity."

You are right about one thing, though. You are not me. Anytime you like, you can quit trying to put words in my mouth or pretend you can read my mind.

That's funny, you seem to be the one claiming Plane or me, or whoever it is you want people to think you're responding to now, can't be objective if they don't apparently toe the the line of how terrible the war is, or don't loathe the Democrats as equally as the Republicans.  No, that would be your implication.  And even with criticisms and condemnations leveled at Bush by supporters of Bush's policies aimed at Terrrorism, that simply gets tossed aside in your apparent mind reading ability of how we spend all our time defending the loser administration.  Your words, not mine

Plane used to be able to see through all the BS and see that. Now he's just as partisan as, well, you are. I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity.

[/i]

Who was the subject of that paragraph? Plane. You were merely a footnote.

Yea, you go right ahead and try to sell that one         Here's a word of advice H.  Stop digging

[Stray Pooch]

Pooch btw was the one who inroduced the demands for denouncing. Don't buy that either.

 


BT, when have I made any demands that anyone criticize Coulter?

Considering that you have chosen to give Coulter an incredible amount of semantical leeway, I find it ungracious that you choose to take my expression of opinion as a demand.

I demand nothing of anyone.  I simply stated that I disagree with your interpretation of Coulter's comments (and frankly find the position you take on that subject denial at best) and that I personally believe that we on the right should criticize our own when they are wrong. 

You have, in this thread, consistently read into and/or added into my comments to make what ought to be a simple molehill of disagreement into a mountain of contention.  In the past, at least, this has not been a characteristic you have displayed.

I would appreciate at least the consideration of interpreting my comments with the same technical equivocation you have given to Ms. Coulter's.

[Plane]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/6/101502.shtml?s=ic


Bill Maher has a simular problem.

[BT]

Pooch

You have stated that anyone who doesn't criticize Ann Coulers remarks is guilty of tacit approval.

Is that not a true reflection of your remarks?

[Amianthus]

You have stated that anyone who doesn't criticize Ann Coulers remarks is guilty of tacit approval.

Here's the quote of his post:

Ann Coulter should be generally lambasted by those of us on the right for this ridiculously childish, offensive comment.  In the same fashion that we ask (and rightly) where the Moslem outrage is at acts of terror and irresponsible rhetoric from Islamists, we need to make it clear that we object to these kinds of idiotic comments.   If we do not do so, the author is completely within reason to blame not just the pundit, but the party.

[Universe Prince]

She used the term faggot in reference to having to go to rehab for not being PC. The whole greys anatomy brouhaha was still fresh in the press and she had referred to it previously.

The phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" was an allusion to the Grey's Anatomy scandal. I do not deny this. That does not, however, change the fact that the word 'faggot' was clearly intended to refer to John Edwards. I said it before, and I'll say it again: To try to explain it away as some sort of bizarre non sequitur where "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" somehow does not refer back to the first part of the sentence, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards," is completely ridiculous.

If i was making excuses for her i would flat out make excuses.

Aren't you?

But thanks anyway for analysing my motives, saves me the trouble dontcha know.

I'm assessing your words, same as I do for anyone else here. You assess what people say here, do you not? And since I did not directly ascribe any particular motive to you, I don't see how you can claim that I'm analyzing your motives. Isn't that your point here? If one doesn't say something directly, then he didn't really say it at all? Or does that just apply to Ann Coulter?

[BT]

If i was making excuses for her i would flat out make excuses.



Aren't you?

No

And since I did not directly ascribe any particular motive to you, I don't see how you can claim that I'm analyzing your motives.

See above.

[Universe Prince]

If i was making excuses for her i would flat out make excuses. Aren't you? No And since I did not directly ascribe any particular motive to you, I don't see how you can claim that I'm analyzing your motives. See above.

This reminds me of a Marx Brothers routine wherein Groucho and Chico are discussing a recent robbery. Groucho asks, "Now what could have been the motive of the guys who swiped the Bogard?" To which Chico replies, "I got it: robbery!"

Saying that you're making excuses is not a analysis of your motives. I see you excusing what Coulter said as not meaning what she actually said because she didn't say it directly. So I say you're making excuses. No part of that delves to your motives. But I confess I find it interesting that you continue this double standard of assigning meaning that does not exist to my words while denying the very obvious meaning of what Ann Coulter said.

[BT]

You are saying i am excusing Coulters words.

Why would i do that? I have no control over what she says. She is not speaking for me by proxy as i have never given her that permission.

An it is very possible that Edwards was the seque to her standard (as in she has used it a couple time previously according to Lanya's sources) riff on rehab for non PC speech.

In your not so subtle ways you have stated that those who do not condemn Coulters speech are guilty of:

1: Secretly being happy with her choice of words because they are too cowardly to speak them themselves
2: Have an obligation to condemn because to not do so shows tacit approval

Both of those reasons are sufficient motives to engage in semantics of(according to you ) the worst kind.
Pooch calls them Clintonian, i don't recall your characterization.

So yeah, you seem to be implying motive when you assert that i am defending her choice of words.

And i don't think i am. I am simply stating that there is a plausible alternative reading.

And to be clear, both you and pooch are free to bash her all you want.

No skin off my back.

[Universe Prince]

You are saying i am excusing Coulters words.

Yep.

Why would i do that?

I don't know. I can guess that you want to do so, or you wouldn't do it. But exactly why, I don't know.

I have no control over what she says. She is not speaking for me by proxy as i have never given her that permission.

Okay. So?

An it is very possible that Edwards was the seque to her standard (as in she has used it a couple time previously according to Lanya's sources) riff on rehab for non PC speech.

Yep, that is possible. Doesn't mean she didn't call Edwards a faggot. I never said she wasn't clever.

In your not so subtle ways you have stated that those who do not condemn Coulters speech are guilty of:

1: Secretly being happy with her choice of words because they are too cowardly to speak them themselves
2: Have an obligation to condemn because to not do so shows tacit approval

I don't think she directly called Edwards a faggot. And i doubt seriously if you can quote where she directly did.

Can you quote where I directly stated that those who do not condemn Coulter's speech are guilty of secretly being happy with her choice of words because they are too cowardly to speak them themselves? Can you quote where I directly stated that those who do not condemn Coulter's speech have an obligation to condemn because to not do so shows tacit approval? Can you quote where I directly stated either about you specifically?

And frankly, I'm not subtle. I've never had a real talent for subtle. I'm not proud of it, but I don't deny it. But the thing is, I don't try to be subtle. Even when I'm obviously being sarcastic, I usually point out anyway that I'm being sarcastic because I prefer to be straightforward. And you reading between the lines of my "not so subtle ways" to find my supposedly implied meaning while defending your position that Coulter didn't say Edwards was a faggot because she didn't directly call him one is disingenuous, to put it politely.

Both of those reasons are sufficient motives to engage in semantics of(according to you ) the worst kind.

Can you quote where I directly said such a thing? Can you quote where I indirectly said such a thing?

Pooch calls them Clintonian, i don't recall your characterization.

Maybe there wasn't one.

So yeah, you seem to be implying motive when you assert that i am defending her choice of words.

I see. So the "if one doesn't say something directly, then he didn't really say it at all" argument applies to Ann Coulter but not to me. That hardly seems fair. I may or may not have implied motive, but it seems like a double standard that Coulter gets a pass on what she implies while I do not.

I am simply stating that there is a plausible alternative reading.

And I suggested that the ADD grammar approach does not result in a plausible alternative reading. Nothing you have said to support it has made it plausible. It is, as I said before, ridiculous.

And to be clear, both you and pooch are free to bash her all you want.

No skin off my back.

Really? Thanks so much.

No, that wasn't subtle. That was sarcasm.