Jay Reding.com

More Idiocy From Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter once again made a fool of herself, this time at CPAC.

Seriously, someone needs to introduce a regulator between her mouth and whatever part of her brain is responsible for this kind of idiocy. She’s not a dumb person, she’s capable of introducing a cogent argument, but when she spouts off with another bit of vitriolic jackassery it undermines everything. What she said about Edwards was inexcusable, and reflects badly on everyone in the conservative movement.

Captain Ed put it best:

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn’t require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as “faggots” or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

There’s a difference between disapproving of homosexual for political, social, and moral reasons and being a bigot. Ms. Coulter made a statement that paints her as a bigot, and it is categorically unacceptable. Her comments were stupid, inflammatory, and most of all against the Christian faith which she claims to profess.

We don’t need the likes of her giving the rest of us a bad name.

14 responses to “More Idiocy From Ann Coulter”

  1. Eracus says:

    Oh, come on. Ann Coulter’s been lobbing her rhetorical bombs from the cheap seats for so long she’s now a “star” at yet another conservative gabfest. Wow. Big deal. That’s what she does. Being tasteless is her thing. Now you get to distance yourself from her tastelessness. Whatever.

    Part of the problem in America today is the number of people willing to be offended by a few people willing to be stupid. It’s become a cottage industry. The only difference is Ann Coulter is a so-called conservative pundit and when she says stupid stuff, it’s “news” to the all too easily offended. Anything to keep those speaking fees on the rise, eh? Meanwhile, everyone has said everything that could be possibly said to offend, say, George Bush, and nobody bats an eye — no one is the least bit offended or disturbed in the slightest. It’s not even news.

    But let Ann Coulter say “faggot” and she’s gotta burn at the stake? Give us a break, Polly.

  2. Eracus says:

    Not to pile on, but Captain Ed is grossly mistaken. AIDS had its American origin in the San Francisco gay community. It is today the most widespread public health disaster on the planet. It’s had an impact on everybody, and not in a good way…..

  3. Eracus says:

    Why isn’t this news?? Why is it okay for Bill Maher to smear Dick Cheney but not for Ann Coulter to smear John Edwards? Where is the bloggeriffic outrage? Nowhere.

    [Friday night, on HBO]:

    Bill Maher: What about the people who got onto the Huffington Post – and these weren’t even the bloggers, these were just the comments section – who said they, they expressed regret that the attack on Dick Cheney failed.

    Joe Scarborough: Right

    Maher: Now…

    John Ridley: More than regret.

    Maher: Well, what did they say?

    Ridley: They said “We wish he would die.” I mean, it was (?) hate language.

    Barney Frank: They said the bomb was wasted. (laughter and applause)Maher:

    Maher: That’s a funny joke. But, seriously, if this isn’t China, shouldn’t you be able to say that? Why did Arianna Huffington, my girlfriend, I love her, but why did she take that off right away?

    ……..

    Ridley: It’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney, which applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion.” And I think, you know…

    Maher: But you should be able to say it. And by the way…

    Frank: Excuse me, Bill, but can I ask you a question? Do you decide what the topics are for this show?

    Maher: Yeah, I decide the topics, they don’t go there.

    Frank: But you exercise control over the show the way that she does over her blog.

    Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

    Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…

    Frank: I think he did.

    Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…

    Maher: No, no. I quoted that.

    Frank: You don’t believe that?

    Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

  4. Mark says:

    Eracus, I wouldn’t have guessed you for a loyal Bill Maher viewer. Doesn’t his Friday night time slot conflict with your militia meetings?

  5. Splashman says:

    Well, I must admit that my first response to Coulter’s comment was to chuckle, mostly because of the “Silky Pony” connection. My second response was to roll my eyes and think to myself, “Oh geez, the Libs are going to have a field day with this.” Politically, it was incredibly stupid. My third response was to wonder what kind of childhood would produce an Ann Coulter.

    But bigotry, Jay? Most definitions of “bigot” are something like this: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

    If we use just the first part of that definition (ignoring the “hatred” aspect), it seems to me that if I believe in any absolutes at all, I will, sooner or later, be subject to the charge of bigotry. If I obstinately believe that abortion is murder, I am a bigot. If I obstinately believe that sex outside of marriage is sin, I am a bigot. If I obstinately believe that there is such thing as good and evil, I am a bigot.

    These days, more often than not, “bigotry” is a term used to demonize someone you disagree with. Jay, I’d like to suggest that you reconsider your use of that word as it applies to Ann Coulter. I can think of plenty of other descriptors that would be more accurate, such as inflammatory, full of herself, inconsiderate, crude, rash, a disgrace to femininity, etc.

    One more thing: As a conservative and a Bible-believing Christian, I have no idea what Captain Ed means by stating that “Christians will need to get over their issues with homosexuality.” If I take that literally, it means, “Christians will need to stop believing the Bible is God’s inerrant word.” If I do that, I am, by definition, no longer a Christian. I fully expect Captain Ed’s next pithy pronouncement to be, “Conservatives need to get over their issues with liberals.”

  6. Splashman says:

    Whoops, forgot to address the “hatred” aspect.

    Jay, if you are certain that Coulter “hates” gays, you may in fact be able to pin the dictionary definition of “bigot” on her. However, the word “hate” is itself ambiguous.

    My Christian faith demands that I hate sin and love sinners. I’m a sinner myself. I hate the sins that I struggle with, including lust, pride, greed and coveting. I hate the sins that others struggle with, including homosexuality. All these sins (and many more) are detrimental to human life and cause untold suffering.

    Do I “hate” homosexuals? No. Every person was created in God’s image. If I hate a homosexual, I challenge God’s sovereignty. I do, however, “hate” the effect that homosexuality has on those who practice it, and “hate” the effect that open homosexuality is having on the world at large.

    There are those who would, on the basis of the above statements, charge me with “hating” homosexuals (or bigotry, natch). Would you be one of those, Jay? (Sincere question! I honestly want to know where you’re coming from!)

  7. Eracus says:

    Very impressive, Mark. Two sentences, two delusions, one ignorant barking moonbat.

  8. jack says:

    Listen to the sheeple bleat.

    Ann has the blogosphere calling for her head–precisely as she intended. Hell she said so–‘saying faggot will get you sent to rehab’. And here you all are demanding some kind of retribution.

    The left has engraved its mores deep into our unconscious. We automatically self-censor so often that the second someone engages in actual free speech, in actually speaking their mind without first running each sentence through a PC sensor, we scream.

    And we scream for the left to fasten their PC cage a bit tighter, to limit us more, to make all our utterences safe and free from harm to those the left decides merit it.

    Think of all the words we no longer say. The ones that make us cringe inside to hear. The ones that tell us that the person who speaks them is a low, horrible person.

    Does this really help?

    Or are we binding ourselves in a web of limitations that make it impossible to answer even the most egregious acts?

    My daughters told me this morning, as we drove them to school from our new house, that the bus they’d have to take had a lot of assholes on it. People that messed with others and threw things. “They’re always throwing stuff and picking on the white kids”. When I asked if they were all black kids my daughters asked me who else? No one does anything. Not the bus driver. Not the teachers. That’s why they do it. Because they can. Because any word said to them to get them to desist is resonded to with a term that hurts white people far more than nigger ever hurt a black person*–and THAT word can be freely tossed about–Racist.

    *this might raise an eyebrow or two, but I stand by it. The society-wide purge of ‘the n-word’ has resulted in societal changes that far outstrip the use of the perjorative ‘nigger’.

    Ann tried to highlight how we bind ourselves. But she only succeeded in getting a lot of us to ask for smaller cages.

  9. Eracus says:

    You only be sayin’ dat cuz you white, you hatin’ dumbass redneck racist cracker!!

    Just kidding….

    This kerfluffle is not just stupid, but wrong-headed bad thinking. What does it say about all the self-assuming notable bloggers and other would-be pundits that they are here now all lined up to condemn, disdain, pooh-pooh, and otherwise distance themselves from one of their own? There is nothing noble in all this fake indignation. It’s just pathetic.

    To be this defensive over a provocative remark (at a political gabfest, no less, imagine that!) does nothing but demonstrate how some people have already consented to thinking only within the Leftist agenda, how they have bowed down to the politically correct, and how they have embraced the moonbat culture of perpetual victimhood by here now clucking and pecking about like a bunch of old wet hens.

    The GOP needs MORE Ann Coulters, not less. Politics ain’t beanbag, and satire and sarcasm have always been part of the game. Besides, who really doesn’t think John Edwards is the absolute epitome of the new-age, thoroughly domesticated, and completely feminized modern American metrosexual white male? He sure seems like a pansy to me! So what?

  10. Nicholas MacDonald says:

    “He sure seems like a pansy to me!”

    You just envy him because he’s richer and better looking. Admit it. ;)

  11. Mark says:

    “The GOP needs MORE Ann Coulters, not less.”

    And I beg you to find more. Coulter is representative of the worldview of maybe 10% of the population. The easier it becomes to associate her bomb-throwing with the Republican Party, the more marginalized the party becomes. And the more marginalized the GOP is, the more Democrats get elected to office to pass pro-union legislation that drives robber barons like yourself into full-on hysteria. If only they served popcorn and soda with the wildly entertaining show that is the historical unraveling of the once-strong modern conservative movement.

  12. zzx375 says:

    Ann Coulters’s remarks might have been in bad taste but questions surrounding preferential treatment for homosexuals still remain. What new information has emerged that demand protection for the homosexual lifestyle that wasn’t avaialble fiv or ten years ago?

  13. Eracus says:

    Right, Mark. Brilliant. Ann Coulter is such a vital concern to the 90% of the population that disagrees with her that she is marginalizing the Republican Party and leading us all into a command economy.

    How much more ridiculous can you possibly get?

  14. shyestviolet says:

    Something tells me it’s not necessarily Ann Coulter giving all y’all a bad name… you might want to start a little closer to home. Although she is quite delightful.