Of Hate-Speech and Hypocrisy

[carpro]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200703/COM20070309a.html

Of Hate-Speech and Hypocrisy
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Managing Editor
March 09, 2007

(Contains language that may be offensive to some readers.)

EXCERPT

(CNSNews.com) - The left-wing Daily Kos blog has been driving a campaign to have companies pull ads from Ann Coulter's website after the conservative author used a slur in a recent speech, but leftist websites -- including Daily Kos -- have themselves used the offending word in the past.

Daily Kos postings have included the word "faggot" at least three times in recent years, as have other liberal blogs -- without apology, and without generating a furor.

SNIP

Homosexual-rights groups employ a double standard too, it appears.

In its response to Coulter's remarks last Friday, GLAAD not only slammed the author but accused CPAC itself of promoting "discriminatory policies," and GLAAD president Neil Giuliano called on media organizations -- NBC News in particular -- to stop offering Coulter a platform.

Three years ago, however, GLAAD took a rather different approach when rapper 50 Cent told Playboy magazine, "I ain't into faggots ... We refer to gay people as faggots, as homos. It could be disrespectful, but that's the facts."

In that instance, GLAAD responded with a polite -- almost respectful -- press release expressing "concern" about the comments, and inviting 50 Cent to attend GLAAD's annual media awards.

And no, there was no suggestion that anyone stop giving the platinum-selling New York "gangsta" a platform.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Thank you for the idea, I think I'll write a letter to her advertisers as well.

 

[777]

Well, when they say it, it's free speech. When you say it, it's hate speech. The left virtually controlled all the media until recently, they are used to attacking, not defending.

They've made their little campaigns against Ann Coulter before. This:

NEW YORK The Human Rights Campaign — which claims to be the largest civil rights organization working for gay equality — says more than 20,000 people have written Universal Press Syndicate since the HRC Tuesday night launched a letter-writing campaign criticizing Ann Coulter’s use of the word “faggot” in a Friday speech.

Now, the HRC is urging people to contact individual newspapers that run Coulter’s column. The new campaign was announced late Wednesday afternoon.

Universal distributes Coulter’s column to about 100 papers. E&P reported Wednesday that two more dailies have dropped Coulter, bringing to at least three the total for the week. But Universal says it has no plans to end its relationship with the columnist.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/gay-rights-group-seeks-to-silence-coulter-ban-her-column

isn't going to work this time, either, these people are professional victims.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Well, when they say it, it's free speech. When you say it, it's hate speech. The left virtually controlled all the media until recently, they are used to attacking, not defending.

They've made their little campaigns against Ann Coulter before. This:


http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/gay-rights-group-seeks-to-silence-coulter-ban-her-column

isn't going to work this time, either, these people are professional victims.

Ann Coulter has absolutely NOTHING worthwhile to say. I try to completely ignore her. <personal attack deleted - LE>.

 

[Dragoon68]

Ann Coulter has absolutely NOTHING worthwhile to say. I try to completely ignore her. <deleted LE>.

Ann Coulter has lots of good sense commentary and I do enjoy most of her writing. I plan on continuing to "support" her by reading what she has to say.

I'm all for the war we fought against Germany led by Adolph Hitler. Ann Coulter has "NOTHING" in common with Adolph Hitler other than being a born sinner like all the rest of us.

Homosexual conduct deserves descriptive words that do not rationalize, excuse, approve, or otherwise suggest any support whatsoever for it. "Gay" is an inappropriate word for it because it suggest happiness.

There's no evidence I know of to suggest John Edwards is homosexual so I don't think he deserved to be called, even indirectly, a "faggot".

I don't like John Edwards. He has declared that homosexual conduct is not a sin and that is contrary to God's word.

 

[777]

You know, Dragoon68, John Edwards needs to stop speaking for Jesus:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."


"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/05/politics/p135336S12.DTL&type=politics

and be a good little trial laywer and go back to his new mansion.

Ann Coulter has absolutely NOTHING worthwhile to say. I try to completely ignore her. <deleted LE>.

Okay, I'm invoking Godwin's Law.

 

[rbell]

Ann Coulter has absolutely NOTHING worthwhile to say. I try to completely ignore her. <deleted LE>.

I'm not a coulter fan...but I don't think she tried to eliminate a race of people from the planet...

Maybe a wee bit of hyperbole here?

 

[Timotheus]

Ann Coulter has absolutely NOTHING worthwhile to say. I try to completely ignore her. <deleted LE>

I thought I've heard everything, but this tops it. Ann Coulter may be a lot of things but Adolph Hitler she is not! I think you owe her an apology.

 

[Timotheus]

Of all the people on the BaptistBoard, I am definitely one of them.

rbell, I thought that is a cute signature! :thumbs:

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Ann Coulter has lots of good sense commentary and I do enjoy most of her writing. I plan on continuing to "support" her by reading what she has to say.

I'm all for the war we fought against Germany led by Adolph Hitler. Ann Coulter has "NOTHING" in common with Adolph Hitler other than being a born sinner like all the rest of us.

Homosexual conduct deserves descriptive words that do not rationalize, excuse, approve, or otherwise suggest any support whatsoever for it. "Gay" is an inappropriate word for it because it suggest happiness.

There's no evidence I know of to suggest John Edwards is homosexual so I don't think he deserved to be called, even indirectly, a "faggot".

I don't like John Edwards. He has declared that homosexual conduct is not a sin and that is contrary to God's word.

But you support Coulter who, in your own admission, deliberately slurred Edwards. Maybe we shoud investigate Ann's sexual propensities.

 

[Dragoon68]

But you support Coulter who, in your own admission, deliberately slurred Edwards. Maybe we shoud investigate Ann's sexual propensities.

So what? There's no "but" about it!

I "support" lots of people in different situations which doesn't mean I give everything they do or say a blanket endorsement! Does anyone agree 100% with everything another does? Hey, I don't even agree with my own conduct some of the time! So far, I've found very little to agree with you about but there's hope we might agree on something in which case I'd "support" you as well.

Regardless, I enjoy Ann Coulter's political commentaries very much and I plan to continue enjoying them. I don't see any need to "investigate" anything about her. I don't give a flip about gossip type stuff such as her "sexual propensities". That's good material for the tabloids if you're in to that kind of reading.

Plain and simple, I don't agree with her comments about John Edwards. She gave an explanation of her comments which I don't completely buy but, given the whole of the situation, I'm just not going to nail her to a cross because of it. I can clearly see the mileage that some want to make of it.

I don't have a problem with the word, per se, that she used. I don't like the word "gay" because it's not derogatory enough of homosexual conduct. It's an otherwise good word that's been stolen to rationalize bad conduct. I prefer the words that put homosexuality in its proper place.

I also don't agree with John Edwards' position regarding homosexuals but that sure doesn't make him one. His position is dangerous to our nation if he were to be elected President. I want a leader that calls homosexual conduct what it is and makes no excuses for it.

 

[Alcott]

Straightandnarrow:

But you support Coulter who, in your own admission, deliberately slurred Edwards. Maybe we shoud investigate Ann's sexual propensities.

Or your own, maybe.