Ann Coulter wrote:Liberals can't even cite their usual "hypocrisy" fig leaf to justify the public outings of conservatives' family members. No outsider can know what goes on inside a family, but according to the public version of one family matter being leered over by liberals, a prominent conservative threw his daughter out of the house when he found out she was gay.
No doubt Coulter is referring here to Maya Keyes, daughter of Alan Keyes, serial senatorial candidate and sometime resident of Illinois. But
the only outing of Maya Keyes was done by Maya Keyes herself. Indeed, the major media outlets in Illinois had this story back in September, but they refused to print it. There was, in other words, no "liberal outing" of Maya Keyes, and to contend otherwise is the height of absurdity.
joefromchicago wrote:Ann Coulter wrote:Liberals can't even cite their usual "hypocrisy" fig leaf to justify the public outings of conservatives' family members. No outsider can know what goes on inside a family, but according to the public version of one family matter being leered over by liberals, a prominent conservative threw his daughter out of the house when he found out she was gay.
No doubt Coulter is referring here to Maya Keyes, daughter of Alan Keyes, serial senatorial candidate and sometime resident of Illinois. But
the only outing of Maya Keyes was done by Maya Keyes herself. Indeed, the major media outlets in Illinois had this story back in September, but they refused to print it. There was, in other words, no "liberal outing" of Maya Keyes, and to contend otherwise is the height of absurdity.
Well it's a good thing Coulter didn't contend otherwise, then, isn't it?
So when is Ann not absurd?
Tico: when you quote something, like that screed about drugs in the Clinton White House, (god it makes me almost nostalgic to know that the freepers are going back to the blame Clinton for everything tack) could you please provide a source or confess that you wrote it yourself?
Joe( Did anyone read the Rich piece?)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:So when is Ann not absurd?
Tico: when you quote something, like that screed about drugs in the Clinton White House, (god it makes me almost nostalgic to know that the freepers are going back to the blame Clinton for everything tack) could you please provide a source or confess that you wrote it yourself?
Joe( Did anyone read the Rich piece?)Nation
Check again.
Tico (I never fail to link my source) Maya
The fact that Ticomaya takes Ann Coulter remotely seriously should be a clear indication to liberals that giving ANY response to her Hitler-like fascist diatribes only emboldens the fools to continue quoting the fools.
Objective journalism died a while ago, and now we get to see the walking dead like Ann Coulter go on Hannity and Colmes to try and eat the flesh of journalists who are still living.
It is a site to behold. Pure entertainment, and nothing more.
Why idiots continue to quote Ann mearly indicates the further dumbing down of Bush's fascist America.
Zieg Heil!
Thanks Ticomaya, I didn't think to click on the headline, and thanks to for leading me to the Hill, a publication that I am sure is above the level of '"that rag" the New York Times.
Joe(I can see clearly now, my brain is gone.)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:Thanks Ticomaya, I didn't think to click on the headline, and thanks to for leading me to the Hill, a publication that I am sure is above the level of '"that rag" the New York Times.
Joe(I can see clearly now, my brain is gone.)Nation
You becha. I'll bet you've not read that one before, huh?
Incidentally, York writes regularly for National Review, if you're hooked.
I read a bit of the National Review now and again, but I don't recall York in particular. It's nice when a writer can find sidework, I was about to say, but as I look out over the world of words, facts and news, I am beginning to wonder if we haven't made a seachange in the way information is traded.
For years the numbers of newspapers have shrunk while magazines have exploded into little bitty segments, (there are individual magazines for every conceivable sport for example). Television news has likewise changed, the amount of news (actual coverage of facts) continues to shrink while commentary on the events continues ad nauseam. It is no secret that the most visible persons on the air these days are NOT the anchors but the pundits.
All pundits are propagandists. Propaganda, even when delivered with the best of intentions, is not news or even information, neither fair nor balanced and not something that I would rely on to make decisions about the future or the past.
Joe(Just tell me what to think, I need the rest.)Nation
Quote:I'm not sure exactly what you're having trouble digesting, but if you read it again I think you'll see that Coulter is speaking to what she perceives is the hypocrisy of asserting on the one hand that "We love gay people!" and on the other hand, weilding the "outing" of these gay people as a sword to "punish" people -- specifically Republicans.
How exactly is he being punished for being
gay? Who is it doing the punishing? We (liberals) have many times stated our support for people of all sexual orientations and continue to do so.
We don't support prostitution, deception, or propaganda by the WH.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:We don't support prostitution, deception, or propaganda by the WH.
But if we keep saying that they won't be able to change the subject and start blaming us.....
Joe(boy, you've just got to start coddling down.)Nation
Cycloptichorn wrote:We don't support prostitution, deception, or propaganda by the WH.
Cycloptichorn
Then how did Clinton get elected?
Why, a bunch of Republicans must have voted for him...
Cycloptichorn
Monica wasn't paid. If she had been she probably could have afforded dry cleaning.
I seem to recall China paying Clinton a lot of money...
Quote:Then how did Clinton get elected?
By two uncontested majorities of the vote. :wink:
Tico wrote:
Quote:I'm not sure exactly what you're having trouble digesting, but if you read it again I think you'll see that Coulter is speaking to what she perceives is the hypocrisy of asserting on the one hand that "We love gay people!" and on the other hand, weilding the "outing" of these gay people as a sword to "punish" people -- specifically Republicans.
Since we LOVE gays why is it punishment to 'out' them. Wouldn't OUTING them be the opportunity for them to be loved even more?
The logic fails because it somehow assumes that the left outs them so the right can hate them. Oh. I get it now. Being hated by the RIGHT is the punishment. DUH. this is all about the hatred of the right. OK.. thanks TICO for hating me enough to make it clear.
Parados, did you just out yourself?
If so... Please know we love you even though you just took all the fun out of it for those trying to out people!
Quote:I seem to recall China paying Clinton a lot of money...
You seem to have a lot of false memories. RW myths are so funny. I bet you can't find a single investigation that showed CLinton personally recieved Chinese money. But that won't stop you from claiming he did.
Quote:Parados, did you just out yourself?
If so... Please know we love you even though you just took all the fun out of it for those trying to out people!
OMG, does this mean I should tell my wife?
