Ann Coulter calls Edwards a Faggot.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

Oh, he's famous for being obtuse. But insisting on definitions that don't exist burns my ass, and I guess I can't seem to let it go.

Also, I suppose you are a pundit, because I also found your post entertaining. 

you mean this definition? 

the one that mentions some pundits by name...like al franken and ann coulter...they are the entertainers messing with the journalistic integrity of the news. {coulter and franken and some others } are the ones who are making the news devolve further toward entertainment and away from reporting...and this definition hardly puts blame on the audience? or does it? 

In the English-speaking West, pundits write signed articles in print media (blurbs included), and appear on radio, television, or the internet to opine on current events. Television pundits may also be referred to as talking heads.

In the strict use of the term, a "pundit" has recognized expertise in a particular field. The term, however, increasingly refers to popular media personalities who express opinions without necessarily holding recognized expertise in the area on which they opine. In recent years in the US, with the increased popularity of prose, television and radio personalities such as Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, pundits are increasingly seen not as experts, but as ideological partisans who tend to do more ranting than measured commentary. They are often accused of being politically biased, and of using informal logic in fallacious ways. This perception has caused the term "pundit" to take on derogatory overtones, with more of the sense of an arrogant loudmouth than an educated commentator. Thus, the term has begun to take on a negative connotations and is often used as a term of disparagement. There is a perception that the popularity of punditry has become harmful to journalism, as many perceive it as another example of news devolving further towards entertainment and away from reporting.

[Miss P]

This is probably a waste of time because I'm not going to convince you because you seem very idoctrinated.  The NAACP ran an ad depicting a chain being dragged behind a truck in the dirt whith a voice over talking about how "the then Texas Governor didnt support hate-crime legislation and it was like the person who was dragged was killed all over again."  Then Governor Bush had already signed the death warrant for the perps of that act.  The word faggot is undeiably hateful, so too is such slander and filth.  If you are too blind to see that these things are a two-way street, and you think Republicans are the only bigots and hate-mongers in this country, well then you are blinded by a pile of dogma so high that it has obstructed the view from your ivory tower.

I know I'm very late coming to this, but I can't believe no one responded to this "analogy."  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.  This was an ad asking people to call then-Governor Bush to tell him to sign a hate crimes bill into law.  You can read about the ad here:  http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html.  It may seem over the top with our decade's distance from James Byrd's murder, but what does this have to do with Ann Coulter's calling Edwards a faggot, with the Democrats or the NAACP or anyone else "hosting hate speech" or anything else?  How is this bigoted, and how does it reflect a particular audience's acceptance of and applause for bigotry?

I'd also like to point out that it is usually Republicans who use this kind of vicims' rights/tough-on-crime rhetoric to take cheap shots at political opponents, so even if this ad were at all a similar error or offense, the sourcing seems highly misleading and selective.

[dashrashi]

Oh, he's famous for being obtuse. But insisting on definitions that don't exist burns my ass, and I guess I can't seem to let it go.

Also, I suppose you are a pundit, because I also found your post entertaining. 

you mean this definition? 

the one that mentions some pundits by name...like al franken and ann coulter...they are the entertainers messing with the journalistic integrity of the news. {coulter and franken and some others } are the ones who are making the news devolve further toward entertainment and away from reporting...and this definition hardly puts blame on the audience? or does it? 

In the English-speaking West, pundits write signed articles in print media (blurbs included), and appear on radio, television, or the internet to opine on current events. Television pundits may also be referred to as talking heads.

In the strict use of the term, a "pundit" has recognized expertise in a particular field. The term, however, increasingly refers to popular media personalities who express opinions without necessarily holding recognized expertise in the area on which they opine. In recent years in the US, with the increased popularity of prose, television and radio personalities such as Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, pundits are increasingly seen not as experts, but as ideological partisans who tend to do more ranting than measured commentary. They are often accused of being politically biased, and of using informal logic in fallacious ways. This perception has caused the term "pundit" to take on derogatory overtones, with more of the sense of an arrogant loudmouth than an educated commentator. Thus, the term has begun to take on a negative connotations and is often used as a term of disparagement. There is a perception that the popularity of punditry has become harmful to journalism, as many perceive it as another example of news devolving further towards entertainment and away from reporting.

Again...what? We already went over this. You're assuming that because WIKIPEDIA says that the news are considered to be less journalism than entertainment that the people responsible for that are therefore entertainers, when the key word is clearly "considered," which does shift the attention to the perceivers--i.e. the audience, and not those on the news.

Miss P--Would you believe that I completely missed that? Going back, it's actually almost laughable that AJF equates calling John Edwards a faggot with the NAACP "calling" Bush...what? A murderer at most, right? Which is not something he can deny at this stage in the game. And technically, all the ad called him was a governor who didn't support hate-crime legislation, which I really don't think qualifies as "slander and filth."

Ugh, God. I hate when people equate criticism of the government with slander. The Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, folks.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

Oh, he's famous for being obtuse. But insisting on definitions that don't exist burns my ass, and I guess I can't seem to let it go.

Also, I suppose you are a pundit, because I also found your post entertaining. 

you mean this definition? 

the one that mentions some pundits by name...like al franken and ann coulter...they are the entertainers messing with the journalistic integrity of the news. {coulter and franken and some others } are the ones who are making the news devolve further toward entertainment and away from reporting...and this definition hardly puts blame on the audience? or does it? 

In the English-speaking West, pundits write signed articles in print media (blurbs included), and appear on radio, television, or the internet to opine on current events. Television pundits may also be referred to as talking heads.

In the strict use of the term, a "pundit" has recognized expertise in a particular field. The term, however, increasingly refers to popular media personalities who express opinions without necessarily holding recognized expertise in the area on which they opine. In recent years in the US, with the increased popularity of prose, television and radio personalities such as Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, pundits are increasingly seen not as experts, but as ideological partisans who tend to do more ranting than measured commentary. They are often accused of being politically biased, and of using informal logic in fallacious ways. This perception has caused the term "pundit" to take on derogatory overtones, with more of the sense of an arrogant loudmouth than an educated commentator. Thus, the term has begun to take on a negative connotations and is often used as a term of disparagement. There is a perception that the popularity of punditry has become harmful to journalism, as many perceive it as another example of news devolving further towards entertainment and away from reporting.

Again...what? We already went over this. You're assuming that because WIKIPEDIA says that the news are considered to be less journalism than entertainment that the people responsible for that are therefore entertainers, when the key word is clearly "considered," which does shift the attention to the perceivers--i.e. the audience, and not those on the news.

Miss P--Would you believe that I completely missed that? Going back, it's actually almost laughable that AJF equates calling John Edwards a faggot with the NAACP "calling" Bush...what? A murderer at most, right? Which is not something he can deny at this stage in the game. And technically, all the ad called him was a governor who didn't support hate-crime legislation, which I really don't think qualifies as "slander and filth."

Ugh, God. I hate when people equate criticism of the government with slander. The Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, folks.

aye perhaps am a little more informed than you...most pundits to me...including al franken...dennis miller...bill maher...ann coulter...and keith olberman are entertainers...and aye place no weight in what they say...they are just amusing to me...clown like if you will...plus...ann coulter writes books which are political commentary{you may look at it as fact...aye look at it as fiction}...plus...stand-up comedians take irreverent remarks and humor even further still...and aye find them amusing as well...perhaps you do not...and this is america and if you feel offended you can address it openly...thank god...everyone is sorry that people were offended...but don't make ann coulter out to be more than what she is...and don't hold a captive audience responsible for some messangers antics.

by the way...aye didn't need a definition as you seemed to need as some proof to figure this out ...to me it was unsimple common sense...

what ann coulter said is really unimportant...get over it...seems like the press has closed the door hard on this one so perhaps you are making more of an entertainers "schtick" than necessary...her jokes are about as good as kerry's jokes. 

seriously...have you ever heard howard stern's commentary?  how about eddie murphy?

aye guess coulter would be considered "cutting edge" to you since she crossed into territory no one else has covered...



this is a non-issue...

pyb, m'am...

seeing as you are not using the "common sense" device aye figure you are probably going to blindly vote democrat in 08.
will you be supporting kerry again?


all jokes aside...aye have a good book for you to check out...websters' first new intergalactic wickedary of the english language by mary daly.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

don't shoot the messanger shoot the receiver?

coulter's words were cantankerous...but don't shoot her...shoot everyone in the captive audience...even those who were zzzzzzzzz...

  thank god this is not the way it works...

[dashrashi]

Oh, he's famous for being obtuse. But insisting on definitions that don't exist burns my ass, and I guess I can't seem to let it go.

Also, I suppose you are a pundit, because I also found your post entertaining. 

you mean this definition? 

the one that mentions some pundits by name...like al franken and ann coulter...they are the entertainers messing with the journalistic integrity of the news. {coulter and franken and some others } are the ones who are making the news devolve further toward entertainment and away from reporting...and this definition hardly puts blame on the audience? or does it? 

In the English-speaking West, pundits write signed articles in print media (blurbs included), and appear on radio, television, or the internet to opine on current events. Television pundits may also be referred to as talking heads.

In the strict use of the term, a "pundit" has recognized expertise in a particular field. The term, however, increasingly refers to popular media personalities who express opinions without necessarily holding recognized expertise in the area on which they opine. In recent years in the US, with the increased popularity of prose, television and radio personalities such as Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, pundits are increasingly seen not as experts, but as ideological partisans who tend to do more ranting than measured commentary. They are often accused of being politically biased, and of using informal logic in fallacious ways. This perception has caused the term "pundit" to take on derogatory overtones, with more of the sense of an arrogant loudmouth than an educated commentator. Thus, the term has begun to take on a negative connotations and is often used as a term of disparagement. There is a perception that the popularity of punditry has become harmful to journalism, as many perceive it as another example of news devolving further towards entertainment and away from reporting.

Again...what? We already went over this. You're assuming that because WIKIPEDIA says that the news are considered to be less journalism than entertainment that the people responsible for that are therefore entertainers, when the key word is clearly "considered," which does shift the attention to the perceivers--i.e. the audience, and not those on the news.

Miss P--Would you believe that I completely missed that? Going back, it's actually almost laughable that AJF equates calling John Edwards a faggot with the NAACP "calling" Bush...what? A murderer at most, right? Which is not something he can deny at this stage in the game. And technically, all the ad called him was a governor who didn't support hate-crime legislation, which I really don't think qualifies as "slander and filth."

Ugh, God. I hate when people equate criticism of the government with slander. The Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, folks.

aye perhaps am a little more informed than you...most pundits to me...including al franken...dennis miller...bill maher...ann coulter...and keith olberman are entertainers...and aye place no weight in what they say...they are just amusing to me...clown like if you will...plus...ann coulter writes books which are political commentary{you may look at it as fact...aye look at it as fiction}...plus...stand-up comedians take irreverent remarks and humor even further still...and aye find them amusing as well...perhaps you do not...and this is america and if you feel offended you can address it openly...thank god...everyone is sorry that people were offended...but don't make ann coulter out to be more than what she is...and don't hold a captive audience responsible for some messangers antics.

by the way...aye didn't need a definition as you seemed to need as some proof to figure this out ...to me it was unsimple common sense...

what ann coulter said is really unimportant...get over it...seems like the press has closed the door hard on this one so perhaps you are making more of an entertainers "schtick" than necessary...her jokes are about as good as kerry's jokes. 

seriously...have you ever heard howard stern's commentary?  how about eddie murphy?

aye guess coulter would be considered "cutting edge" to you since she crossed into territory no one else has covered...



this is a non-issue...

pyb, m'am...

seeing as you are not using the "common sense" device aye figure you are probably going to blindly vote democrat in 08.
will you be supporting kerry again?


all jokes aside...aye have a good book for you to check out...websters' first new intergalactic wickedary of the english language by mary daly.

I generally vote Socialist, but thanks for asking.

As to the above, I feel like we're finally making some headway. See my bolds.

[_BP_]

Miss P, I see you're still awesome.

Dashrashi, don't argue with fools, they will bring you down to their level and....haha you know the rest.

Some of the responses on this thread reminds me of this Lauryn Hill line:

Now, who you know without any flaws
That lives above the spiritual laws
And does anything they feel just because
There's always someone there who'll applaud

or make excuses, or set up false analogies....HA!

Seriously though, with all this country has seen in the last few years, with all the new scandals and lies that are being revealed before our eyes, and given the collective mindset that it took to get us where we are now, it takes a really "special" person to still want to sip the kool-aid. It's like the blindfolds have been removed and they decided to keep their eyes shut. There's little the rest of us can do LOL

[Slow Children At Play]

"It is the creative potential itself in human beings that is the image of God."

"'God's plan' is often a front for men's plans and a cover for inadequacy, ignorance, and evil".
...
"Tokenism does not change stereotypes of social systems but works to preserve them, since it dulls the revolutionary impulse."

...mary daly


clowns will continue to use words like a car wreck...to draw people in...people like howard stern and ann coulter and al franken have used "verbal shock" to make money...their words are their message.

...just don't buy it...most of the audience doesn't.




this is a kool quote from toure's book...never drank the kool-aid   "I never bought into the philosophy of the rappers, singers, and celebrities I wrote about. I wasn't there to help extend their brands and the story they were selling. I was there to try to understand who they were beyond the image they want us to think they were."

NICE SLED... ya louger.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

"It is the creative potential itself in human beings that is the image of God."

"'God's plan' is often a front for men's plans and a cover for inadequacy, ignorance, and evil".
...
"Tokenism does not change stereotypes of social systems but works to preserve them, since it dulls the revolutionary impulse."

...mary daly


clowns will continue to use words like a car wreck...to draw people in...people like howard stern and ann coulter and al franken have used "verbal shock" to make money...their words are their message.

...just don't buy it...most of the audience doesn't.




this is a kool quote from toure's book...never drank the kool-aid   "I never bought into the philosophy of the rappers, singers, and celebrities I wrote about. I wasn't there to help extend their brands and the story they were selling. I was there to try to understand who they were beyond the image they want us to think they were."

[Benefactor]

Is there something particularly offensive about calling someone something that he/she obviously is not?  Edwards is married with kids.  Despite his fantastic hair, everyone, even Ann, knows hes not gay.  Sooo she called him a faggot, people call Bush a nazi and war crimminal all the time, both equally untrue statements.  Will you all get up an arms about such comments that serve only to cheapen the severity of the holocaust?

Bush is a war criminal, though.