William,
I noticed you never addressed Razorback's posting above:
[quote] Here's some of Ann's "wisdom" in an article about gay priests:
Meanwhile, no spate of sex scandals is engulfing the Boy Scouts of America. Inasmuch as the Boy Scouts were not taking risk-assessment advice from Norman Mineta, they decided to eliminate a whole category of potential problems by refusing to allow gay men to be scout leaders. Perhaps gay scout leaders just really liked camping. But it was also possible that gay men who wanted to lead troops of adolescent boys into the woods were up to no good.
I would love to hear whether you agree with Ann on that.
Full Version: Ann Coulter
I have never been one to like the term self-hating, as it seems as it is used against gays who dont follow what is perceived to be what the gay mainstream should be. I have always thought the term was stupid and is used by a lot of the gay community to classify or categorize someone else who is gay that they cannot relate to as someone like themselves. For instance, gay republicans, gay sports fans, gay hunters, etc. anything that is not stereotypical gay. The point is I dont like the term, self-hating, but this would have to be one of the few instances where I can see how any gay person that looks up to and admires someone like this Coulter woman to actually fit in that category, along with gays that admire people like John Rocker. I dont know what her viewpoints on gays is supposed to be but that last comment about gay scout leaders leading the kids into the woods says a lot. Maybe I'm wrong and she is really a gay friendly person, but that scout comment should be taken as a slam or slap in the face by her to all gay people.
Beavis & Butt-head kick ass. Still.
[quote]It's naive to the point of dangerous to still think we're all in this together
I agree with that. [JA looks out his office window to gawk at the pigs flying because he actually he agrees with W1865 about something, anything].
[quote]I have always thought the term was stupid and is used by a lot of the gay community to classify or categorize someone else who is gay that they cannot relate to as someone like themselves. For instance, gay republicans, gay sports fans, gay hunters, etc. anything that is not stereotypical gay
Well, I prefer self-loathing myself, loathing conjuring up a great image of digust. I don't lump Log Cabiners, for example, in to the self-loathing category; a closeted Republican who f**ks his male pages but is venomously anti-gay in public and consistently votes against pro-gay legislation, possibly. Or is that just rank political opportunism? Hmmm....
Sorry for the /OT, back to the Coulter Love/Hate.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
[quote]It's naive to the point of dangerous to still think we're all in this together
I agree with that. [JA looks out his office window to gawk at the pigs flying because he actually he agrees with W1865 about something, anything].
[quote]I have always thought the term was stupid and is used by a lot of the gay community to classify or categorize someone else who is gay that they cannot relate to as someone like themselves. For instance, gay republicans, gay sports fans, gay hunters, etc. anything that is not stereotypical gay
Well, I prefer self-loathing myself, loathing conjuring up a great image of digust. I don't lump Log Cabiners, for example, in to the self-loathing category; a closeted Republican who f**ks his male pages but is venomously anti-gay in public and consistently votes against pro-gay legislation, possibly. Or is that just rank political opportunism? Hmmm....
Sorry for the /OT, back to the Coulter Love/Hate.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
It's naive to the point of dangerous to still think we're all in this together.
Hopefully the administration will remember this while they're complaining about how Homeland Security isn't passed by Congress to their satisfaction, how courts are blocking some of the post-9/11 Ashcroft activities, etc. But somehow I doubt it.
It's naive to think we all were EVER in this together.
It's naive to the point of dangerous to still think we're all in this together.
Hopefully the administration will remember this while they're complaining about how Homeland Security isn't passed by Congress to their satisfaction, how courts are blocking some of the post-9/11 Ashcroft activities, etc. But somehow I doubt it.
It's naive to think we all were EVER in this together.
[quote]Originally posted by Lots-of-us:
William,
I noticed you never addressed Razorback's posting above:
I think the Boy Scouts are essentially a private organization and should be able to choose the people they put in leadership positions, and to set whatever criteria they see fit for selection to such positions. As far as whether gay scout leaders would be more of a threat to children, I don't know. But obviously the Boy Scouts takes a better-safe-than-sorry approach to the matter, which I think is reasonable, just as I think it would be reasonable to disallow men from leading Girl Scout expeditions.
(Remember, too, that the Boy Scouts decision is probably also influenced by very valid liability concerns. If a child were to be molested by a gay Scout leader, you can bet the Boy Scouts would be slammed with a pretty massive lawsuit. Allowing a child molester to be in close quarters with kids is, after all, a far more serious violation than many of the things people are sued for these days. So if you don't like the Boy Scouts policy, don't forget to blame a trial lawyer.)
But hey, that's just me.
William,
I noticed you never addressed Razorback's posting above:
I think the Boy Scouts are essentially a private organization and should be able to choose the people they put in leadership positions, and to set whatever criteria they see fit for selection to such positions. As far as whether gay scout leaders would be more of a threat to children, I don't know. But obviously the Boy Scouts takes a better-safe-than-sorry approach to the matter, which I think is reasonable, just as I think it would be reasonable to disallow men from leading Girl Scout expeditions.
(Remember, too, that the Boy Scouts decision is probably also influenced by very valid liability concerns. If a child were to be molested by a gay Scout leader, you can bet the Boy Scouts would be slammed with a pretty massive lawsuit. Allowing a child molester to be in close quarters with kids is, after all, a far more serious violation than many of the things people are sued for these days. So if you don't like the Boy Scouts policy, don't forget to blame a trial lawyer.)
But hey, that's just me.
For what it's worth, here's what Ann actually said about the Kennedys:
"This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?"
"This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?"
She sounds like if she gets anymore perfect, she won't be able to stand herself. wow.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
If a child were to be molested by a gay Scout leader, you can bet the Boy Scouts would be slammed with a pretty massive lawsuit. Allowing a child molester to be in close quarters with kids is, after all, a far more serious violation than many of the things people are sued for these days.
So I take it you are a child molester because you are gay?
Edited to make the quote thingy work.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: orsino4 ]
If a child were to be molested by a gay Scout leader, you can bet the Boy Scouts would be slammed with a pretty massive lawsuit. Allowing a child molester to be in close quarters with kids is, after all, a far more serious violation than many of the things people are sued for these days.
So I take it you are a child molester because you are gay?
Edited to make the quote thingy work.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: orsino4 ]
Coulter is praising the BSA too soon for eliminating "a whole category of potential problems by refusing to allow gay men to be scout leaders" -- her evidence: no "spate" of men coming forward.
Well the BSA decision is a relatively recent one -- what happens if a "spate" of men who were molested as scouts during the '70s and '80s come forward now? Many of the R.C. abuse cases we hear about are from the time.
Well the BSA decision is a relatively recent one -- what happens if a "spate" of men who were molested as scouts during the '70s and '80s come forward now? Many of the R.C. abuse cases we hear about are from the time.
William think about what you just said. Do you really believe that discrimination against gay people can be justified out of a desire to weed out pedophiles? That gay people are more likely to be pedophiles? Or that homosexuality and pedophilia are two branches of the same tree - deviancy.
I am highly offended anyone suggests that I, because I am gay, need to be kept away from children. When sentiments like this are voiced by Bill O'Reilly it makes me want to throw a brick at the t.v. To hear it coming from you, well . . . to understate, it's just sad. We all know where you are coming from now. Is it yourself that you loathe, or just the rest of us queers?
I am highly offended anyone suggests that I, because I am gay, need to be kept away from children. When sentiments like this are voiced by Bill O'Reilly it makes me want to throw a brick at the t.v. To hear it coming from you, well . . . to understate, it's just sad. We all know where you are coming from now. Is it yourself that you loathe, or just the rest of us queers?
So William, I suppose you would support schools that would ban gays (or perhaps all men) from teaching high school and elementary school, too, then? Got to be safe from those child molesters.
[quote]I think the Boy Scouts are essentially a private organization and should be able to choose the people they put in leadership positions, and to set whatever criteria they see fit for selection to such positions
I think the flaw in that argument is that while the BSA itself might be a private organization, it feeds at the trough of public money and uses public facilities to hold meetings, jamborees. If the BSA pulled an Augusta Country Club (where they hold The Masters) and totally withdrew from public largesse (in the case of ACC, getting money from CBS), then fine, they could train their charges to be Hitler Junge 2002 for all I care. But as long as even .00000000000001 cents of my/our tax money goes to them, even indirectly (say, via the United Way), then they're subject to state/federal anti-discrimination laws.
I think the flaw in that argument is that while the BSA itself might be a private organization, it feeds at the trough of public money and uses public facilities to hold meetings, jamborees. If the BSA pulled an Augusta Country Club (where they hold The Masters) and totally withdrew from public largesse (in the case of ACC, getting money from CBS), then fine, they could train their charges to be Hitler Junge 2002 for all I care. But as long as even .00000000000001 cents of my/our tax money goes to them, even indirectly (say, via the United Way), then they're subject to state/federal anti-discrimination laws.
William, William, William,
Read what you wrote again:
[quote] If a child were to be molested by a gay Scout leader, you can bet the Boy Scouts would be slammed with a pretty massive lawsuit. Allowing a child molester to be in close quarters with kids is, after all, a far more serious violation than many of the things people are sued for these days.
You just equated being gay with being a child molester. I'm sure that's not what you mean but it is what you said. The flaw with the BSA policy (which even Ann Coulter should have been able to figure out) is that openly gay scout leaders would not be the problem since everyone would know that they're gay. The problem comes from the closet pedophile/pederast (who might not even think of himself as gay) who hides his deviancy until moments when he can prey on some poor unsuspecting kid.
Read what you wrote again:
[quote] If a child were to be molested by a gay Scout leader, you can bet the Boy Scouts would be slammed with a pretty massive lawsuit. Allowing a child molester to be in close quarters with kids is, after all, a far more serious violation than many of the things people are sued for these days.
You just equated being gay with being a child molester. I'm sure that's not what you mean but it is what you said. The flaw with the BSA policy (which even Ann Coulter should have been able to figure out) is that openly gay scout leaders would not be the problem since everyone would know that they're gay. The problem comes from the closet pedophile/pederast (who might not even think of himself as gay) who hides his deviancy until moments when he can prey on some poor unsuspecting kid.
I think we've had this debate before, and it's sort of an old topic. Plus, I knew this was a hornet's nest, but somebody asked me specifically what I thought of one of Miss Coulter's assertions. I knew if I answered, it would generate a lot of mindles - I should say, misguided replies ("So you think gays are child molesters?!?!"). But I knew if I didn't answer my silence could be interpreted as shame, or ignorance, or something. It seemed like a challenge to a duel. I couldn't resist.
At any rate, I believe the Boy Scouts is essentially a private organization, private enough that they should be allowed to set their own policies without government interference. Families who are not comfortable with this are free to seek out other venues for their childrens' personal growth.
At any rate, I believe the Boy Scouts is essentially a private organization, private enough that they should be allowed to set their own policies without government interference. Families who are not comfortable with this are free to seek out other venues for their childrens' personal growth.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I knew if I answered, it would generate a lot of mindles - I should say, misguided replies ("So you think gays are child molesters?!?!").
Simply because you cannot state your opinions in a clear manner does not make the rest of us mindless or misguided. Perhaps you did not mean to equate gays with child molesters, but your statements do precisely that.
I can only read what you write. I am not a mind-reader.
I knew if I answered, it would generate a lot of mindles - I should say, misguided replies ("So you think gays are child molesters?!?!").
Simply because you cannot state your opinions in a clear manner does not make the rest of us mindless or misguided. Perhaps you did not mean to equate gays with child molesters, but your statements do precisely that.
I can only read what you write. I am not a mind-reader.
As the other huge Coulter fan on this board, let me put in my two cents. Unlike so many others on this board, I just don't react with knee-jerk loathing to anybody who says something homophobic. Instead, my first thought is, "I wish I could talk to them." Too many gay men love to distance themselves from and demonize people who say or do anything homophobic, consequently wallow in a sort of self-congratulatory self-pity, and then feel empowered by the delusion that they've actually done something productive.
Sorry, but no dice. I think the only way you conquer homophobia is by talking to people and thereby bridging the gap, not by distancing yourself and labeling such people "the enemy." Mind you, I think the former approach is a lot more difficult. Instead of standing off at a safe distance, you have to get up close and personal. The other person might say or do something hurtful. You're really putting yourself out on the line. Also, for the most part, there's no glamour in it. Scream invective at a homophobe, and you'll drown in waves of applause from your gay brethren. Suggest that maybe the person's not so bad and express a desire to talk to him/her, and you're branded a traitor. In my opinion, the "distancing and demonizing" approach is for professional victims, people who value the solace of self-pity far more than any real progress. Taking a risk, putting yourself out there, talking to a homophobic person one-on-one, letting him/her get to know you as a human being ... that's the approach of a reasonable adult who wants to make a substantive difference.
So back to the subject of Ann Coulter. It's only a gut feeling, but I can't think that Ann Coulter is a bad person. I mean, come on, anybody who hates liberals as much as she does can't be all bad, right? OK, I probably didn't win over too many of you with that one. Do I think that Coulter's statement about gays and the BSA was misguided? Of course, just because you're gay, it doesn't mean you're a pedophile (although William1865 brings up a good point that the Girl Scouts would never allow an adult heterosexual male to go out on camping trips with a group of girls, and that's not saying anything about straight men and pedophilia, it's just common sense). If I had a chance to have lunch with Ann Coulter, one, I'm sure I'd laugh my ass off. But hopefully, when I'm done wiping the guffaw-induced tears from my eyes, I'd mention something about how it's unfair and hurtful to say, or even imply, any association of pedophilia with gay men.
Why do I love Ann Coulter so much? First of all, while her sense of humor doesn't appeal to everyone, obviously, I find her strident bitch act absolutely hilarious. Perhaps more important, she makes assertions that nobody else dare so much as whisper. I live in a state where the Kennedys are so damned revered it's ridiculous, yet Coulter speaks the truth when calls them "a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as 'Camelot'". Michael Kennedy was boffing his 14-year-old babysitter (good gawd, she was bragging about all over her high school, and his wife was divorcing him over it), but do you think there was any chance of charges being brought up? Not in this state. Ted Kennedy, instead of trying to rescue that girl, instead of trying to get help, ran to the shelter and security of his family in order to save his own hide and left that poor girl to die. In my mind, that's tantamount to murder. Do you think any reasonable legal fact-finding took place? Not in this state. A state trooper friend of mine says that the number of times a Kennedy has been pulled over for DUI is beyond absurd. Any convictions? Be serious. If the pious Bob Unger wants to call Coulter's assertions about the Kennedys hate-filled, that's his opinion. I think she was dead on.
Do I like what Ann Coulter said about gays and the Boy Scouts? No. But am I going to hate her and dismiss her entirely because of it? Sorry, not my style. Besides, I could never deny myself the pure joy of her riotously funny liberal-bashing. And like the NY Observer reporter, it really would be a dream come to true to have lunch with the gal. If you want to label me as "self-loathing" <eye roll> because of that, go right on ahead.
Sorry, but no dice. I think the only way you conquer homophobia is by talking to people and thereby bridging the gap, not by distancing yourself and labeling such people "the enemy." Mind you, I think the former approach is a lot more difficult. Instead of standing off at a safe distance, you have to get up close and personal. The other person might say or do something hurtful. You're really putting yourself out on the line. Also, for the most part, there's no glamour in it. Scream invective at a homophobe, and you'll drown in waves of applause from your gay brethren. Suggest that maybe the person's not so bad and express a desire to talk to him/her, and you're branded a traitor. In my opinion, the "distancing and demonizing" approach is for professional victims, people who value the solace of self-pity far more than any real progress. Taking a risk, putting yourself out there, talking to a homophobic person one-on-one, letting him/her get to know you as a human being ... that's the approach of a reasonable adult who wants to make a substantive difference.
So back to the subject of Ann Coulter. It's only a gut feeling, but I can't think that Ann Coulter is a bad person. I mean, come on, anybody who hates liberals as much as she does can't be all bad, right? OK, I probably didn't win over too many of you with that one. Do I think that Coulter's statement about gays and the BSA was misguided? Of course, just because you're gay, it doesn't mean you're a pedophile (although William1865 brings up a good point that the Girl Scouts would never allow an adult heterosexual male to go out on camping trips with a group of girls, and that's not saying anything about straight men and pedophilia, it's just common sense). If I had a chance to have lunch with Ann Coulter, one, I'm sure I'd laugh my ass off. But hopefully, when I'm done wiping the guffaw-induced tears from my eyes, I'd mention something about how it's unfair and hurtful to say, or even imply, any association of pedophilia with gay men.
Why do I love Ann Coulter so much? First of all, while her sense of humor doesn't appeal to everyone, obviously, I find her strident bitch act absolutely hilarious. Perhaps more important, she makes assertions that nobody else dare so much as whisper. I live in a state where the Kennedys are so damned revered it's ridiculous, yet Coulter speaks the truth when calls them "a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as 'Camelot'". Michael Kennedy was boffing his 14-year-old babysitter (good gawd, she was bragging about all over her high school, and his wife was divorcing him over it), but do you think there was any chance of charges being brought up? Not in this state. Ted Kennedy, instead of trying to rescue that girl, instead of trying to get help, ran to the shelter and security of his family in order to save his own hide and left that poor girl to die. In my mind, that's tantamount to murder. Do you think any reasonable legal fact-finding took place? Not in this state. A state trooper friend of mine says that the number of times a Kennedy has been pulled over for DUI is beyond absurd. Any convictions? Be serious. If the pious Bob Unger wants to call Coulter's assertions about the Kennedys hate-filled, that's his opinion. I think she was dead on.
Do I like what Ann Coulter said about gays and the Boy Scouts? No. But am I going to hate her and dismiss her entirely because of it? Sorry, not my style. Besides, I could never deny myself the pure joy of her riotously funny liberal-bashing. And like the NY Observer reporter, it really would be a dream come to true to have lunch with the gal. If you want to label me as "self-loathing" <eye roll> because of that, go right on ahead.
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
As the other huge Coulter fan on this board, let me put in my two cents. Unlike so many others on this board, I just don't react with knee-jerk loathing to anybody who says something homophobic. Instead, my first thought is, "I wish I could talk to them." Too many gay men love to distance themselves from and demonize people who say or do anything homophobic, consequently wallow in a sort of self-congratulatory self-pity, and then feel empowered by the delusion that they've actually done something productive.
I dont think its my mission in life to change people's minds about whether I am a pedophile or not. If that person is that ignorant to say something like that how can it really be worth my time, it's not like its someone I see on a daily basis. Of coarse I am going to distance myself and dislike anyone who calls me a pedophile. And its not like I'm here crying going "oh my feelings are so hurt, Anne Coulter called me a pedophile", but anyone who says something stupid and ignorant like that will naturally be my enemy. Gay people dont owe it anymore to these people to apologize, explain themselves and try to change their minds for who they are, in 2002 if your still that ignorant your not worth the time.
As the other huge Coulter fan on this board, let me put in my two cents. Unlike so many others on this board, I just don't react with knee-jerk loathing to anybody who says something homophobic. Instead, my first thought is, "I wish I could talk to them." Too many gay men love to distance themselves from and demonize people who say or do anything homophobic, consequently wallow in a sort of self-congratulatory self-pity, and then feel empowered by the delusion that they've actually done something productive.
I dont think its my mission in life to change people's minds about whether I am a pedophile or not. If that person is that ignorant to say something like that how can it really be worth my time, it's not like its someone I see on a daily basis. Of coarse I am going to distance myself and dislike anyone who calls me a pedophile. And its not like I'm here crying going "oh my feelings are so hurt, Anne Coulter called me a pedophile", but anyone who says something stupid and ignorant like that will naturally be my enemy. Gay people dont owe it anymore to these people to apologize, explain themselves and try to change their minds for who they are, in 2002 if your still that ignorant your not worth the time.
Maybe she wants to be included in that bitch hall of fame like Martha and Oprah. Or is that the man bashing club? I guess it's empowering for women to be the biggest bitch they can be. It must work,people do notice them.
Here's a newsflash for ya: LIFE IS UNFAIR
One can deal with that reality in one of two ways, work to improve things, or sit around and feel sorry for yourself. It is my belief that the Cult of Victimhood has done more to sabatoge the lives and welfare of gays/lesbians than anything the religious right or the Republican party has thrown at us. Nobody can defeat you more soundly than you can defeat yourself.
I can't expect that my posts here on Outsports can possibly counter the lure of victimhood. Victimhood seduces because self-pity feels so good. The approach that I favor is a helluva lot more difficult, and it ain't gonna make you feel good, not in the short term anyway. Hey, I can't stop anybody from feeling sorry for himself, so go wild! Have a party! But if one chooses to be a sniveling do-nothing-but-feel-sorry-for-yourself little bitch, then one forfeits any and all rights to complain about one's lot in life.
God how I hate whining, I hate sniveling, and I hate self-pity. All three have risen to a fever pitch here, so this will be my last post in this thread.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
One can deal with that reality in one of two ways, work to improve things, or sit around and feel sorry for yourself. It is my belief that the Cult of Victimhood has done more to sabatoge the lives and welfare of gays/lesbians than anything the religious right or the Republican party has thrown at us. Nobody can defeat you more soundly than you can defeat yourself.
I can't expect that my posts here on Outsports can possibly counter the lure of victimhood. Victimhood seduces because self-pity feels so good. The approach that I favor is a helluva lot more difficult, and it ain't gonna make you feel good, not in the short term anyway. Hey, I can't stop anybody from feeling sorry for himself, so go wild! Have a party! But if one chooses to be a sniveling do-nothing-but-feel-sorry-for-yourself little bitch, then one forfeits any and all rights to complain about one's lot in life.
God how I hate whining, I hate sniveling, and I hate self-pity. All three have risen to a fever pitch here, so this will be my last post in this thread.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
Whining is generally a verbal affair. Attributing whining to written text requires a predisposition of the reader to want to 'hear' whining. For example...
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
God how I hate whining, I hate sniveling, and I hate self-pity. All three have risen to a fever pitch here, so this will be my last post in this thread.
could be read as a statement of protest or anger or WHINING.
I have read nothing of whining, just discussion -- passionate but plain.
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
God how I hate whining, I hate sniveling, and I hate self-pity. All three have risen to a fever pitch here, so this will be my last post in this thread.
could be read as a statement of protest or anger or WHINING.
I have read nothing of whining, just discussion -- passionate but plain.
[quote] Cult of Victimhood
Blah, blah, blah. Please!
If you wish to defend a columnist who implies that we're pedophiles, or more inclined toward pedophilia, that's your right. But I find such statements highly offensive and intend to raise my voice in protest, call it whatever you wish. In the mean time, maybe you should oblige Ms. Coulter and STAY AWAY FROM CHILDREN. Maybe if you sweet-talk her she will change her mind, but I rather doubt it.
Blah, blah, blah. Please!
If you wish to defend a columnist who implies that we're pedophiles, or more inclined toward pedophilia, that's your right. But I find such statements highly offensive and intend to raise my voice in protest, call it whatever you wish. In the mean time, maybe you should oblige Ms. Coulter and STAY AWAY FROM CHILDREN. Maybe if you sweet-talk her she will change her mind, but I rather doubt it.
I don't really like children anyway, unless they're related to me, so this whole pedophilia thing is really over my head. To paraphrase Florence King (I can't remember her exact words): I don't understand pedophiles because I don't see how they manage to stay in the same room with the little brats, much less molest them.
I am entering this thread late, and have to admit I only have encountered Ms. Coulter in the recent past. She is certainly not the only strident, loud-mouth conservative who cannot get her facts straight, and makes sweeping generalizations about "liberals" (apparently defined as anyone who doesn't agree with her), but she appears to be the loudest and getting to be the best-known.
From what I have read and heard of her, her biggest problem seems to be self-loathing - she hates women and anything female. I believe it was her that wrote a column (on World Net Daily - an unintentionally funny collection of far-right conspiracy theories interspersed with news) about how these strong manly men were so important after 9/11, and how the lack of female police officers and firefighters that were killed showed men are better for those jobs (actually it was just very few females in those professions killed). The whole column, and subsequent columns reeks of her dislike for softness or femininity.
I, however, cannot laugh at her because there are people out there who believe her garbage to be gospel. As long as there are "pundits" who will continue the party line that gays are not worthy of full participation in society, we have to react, although maybe not as vocally as some reactions to Ms. Coulter have been.
From what I have read and heard of her, her biggest problem seems to be self-loathing - she hates women and anything female. I believe it was her that wrote a column (on World Net Daily - an unintentionally funny collection of far-right conspiracy theories interspersed with news) about how these strong manly men were so important after 9/11, and how the lack of female police officers and firefighters that were killed showed men are better for those jobs (actually it was just very few females in those professions killed). The whole column, and subsequent columns reeks of her dislike for softness or femininity.
I, however, cannot laugh at her because there are people out there who believe her garbage to be gospel. As long as there are "pundits" who will continue the party line that gays are not worthy of full participation in society, we have to react, although maybe not as vocally as some reactions to Ms. Coulter have been.
To me, the point of this exchange was to get some of Ann Coulter's gay fans to admit that the woman at least some times makes remarks that can only be construed as homophobic and/or ignorant. William just can't bring himself to admit that, apparently. I don't see why not. There's hardly anybody in the world that anyone of us would agree with 100% (at least, I hope that's true). Why not disavow the homophobic/ignorant things that Coulter says? It doesn't mean that you therefore somehow dismiss EVERYTHING she says.
From Bo Sox Rudy
[quote] the Cult of Victimhood has done more to sabatoge the lives and welfare of gays/lesbians than anything the religious right or the Republican party has thrown at us
Oh, right. We were SO much better off before those whiny queens at the Stonewall began convincing us we were all victims of oppression. Do you think schools were desegregated because MLK and Thurgood Marshall got kissy-kissy with the KKK?
It's entirely possible that Coulter treats gays and lesbians with dignity in her everyday life, but in my book that makes her a worse person not a better one. Hypocrisy never improves one's character. The fact is, whatever she believes herself, she helps to validate the opinions of the millions of people who do equate homosexuality with pederasty.
Honestly, I don't see a lot of whining, self-pitying posts on this board. I do see a lot of people who show a concern for injustice, mostly injustice to other people, often injustice to groups (like Arab Americans for example) they don't belong to. I also see a lot of people who are rightly concerned with the ascendance to power of people who might attack our legal rights and those of other people (like Ashcroft).
And while we're on the subject of whining and self-pity--when will you quit whining about the liberal media, and how conservatives are misunderstood in the gay community? Poor BoSoxRudy being called selfish for being a conservative. We can't even rank football teams without being accused of anti-religious bigotry!
William1865 wrote:
[quote] I don't really like children anyway, unless they're related to me
Ah, so since William isn't interested in any occupation dealing with children, or in adopting any, so attitudes that might block other gay men from these activities are irrelevant to him. How typical.
[quote] the Cult of Victimhood has done more to sabatoge the lives and welfare of gays/lesbians than anything the religious right or the Republican party has thrown at us
Oh, right. We were SO much better off before those whiny queens at the Stonewall began convincing us we were all victims of oppression. Do you think schools were desegregated because MLK and Thurgood Marshall got kissy-kissy with the KKK?
It's entirely possible that Coulter treats gays and lesbians with dignity in her everyday life, but in my book that makes her a worse person not a better one. Hypocrisy never improves one's character. The fact is, whatever she believes herself, she helps to validate the opinions of the millions of people who do equate homosexuality with pederasty.
Honestly, I don't see a lot of whining, self-pitying posts on this board. I do see a lot of people who show a concern for injustice, mostly injustice to other people, often injustice to groups (like Arab Americans for example) they don't belong to. I also see a lot of people who are rightly concerned with the ascendance to power of people who might attack our legal rights and those of other people (like Ashcroft).
And while we're on the subject of whining and self-pity--when will you quit whining about the liberal media, and how conservatives are misunderstood in the gay community? Poor BoSoxRudy being called selfish for being a conservative. We can't even rank football teams without being accused of anti-religious bigotry!
William1865 wrote:
[quote] I don't really like children anyway, unless they're related to me
Ah, so since William isn't interested in any occupation dealing with children, or in adopting any, so attitudes that might block other gay men from these activities are irrelevant to him. How typical.
JC: The greatest thing to come out of Texas since ZZ Top's first album. Or Nolan Ryan.
I'll take a slightly less sarcastic approach to responding to BSRudy's ludicrous comment about his pet Republican punditocracy buzzphrase, Cult of Victimhood--why does that always make me think of the kickass Living Color song Cult of Personality?--and the Religious Right (hereafter RR).
Sodomy Laws. Sodomy laws are truly despicable. Even if they aren't prosecuted, they set up a dynamic where homosexuals (and in one of those oh-so-delightful ironies, in 10 states, heterosexuals) are defacto criminals. If I had a buck for every time some nutjob on the RR used a sodomy law as justification for some anti-gay action, even as relatively trivial as having Net access to non-porno gay sites at public libraries, I'd be retired to the south of England by now. This is played out with dozens of issues like adoption, hospital visitations and so on. "Why should homosexuals be allowed to visit their sick homosexual partners? They're both criminals". I realize that the RR needs a bogeyman to raise funds and rally the troops with since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it's depressing how much time, energy and money that could be better spent elsewhere is sucked up fighting these seemingly endless battles, large and small, with the much better organized and funded RR.
And of course, every time a sodomy law comes up for repeal, the RR fights like caged wolverines to keep it on the books. So, hyperbole aside, sodomy laws are just one of dozens of instances where the RR actively fights to make life for queers difficult. To equate the RR's documented actions with an abstract concept that is mainly the creation of conservative think-tankers and talk-show hosts is absurd at best, myopic at worst.
[quote]And while we're on the subject of whining and self-pity--when will you quit whining about the liberal media, and how conservatives are misunderstood in the gay community?
Amen to that brother. You're forgetting the best one: The Moderators at Outsports Have A Liberal Bias. As if, with co-founder Cyd being a total Republican.
I'll take a slightly less sarcastic approach to responding to BSRudy's ludicrous comment about his pet Republican punditocracy buzzphrase, Cult of Victimhood--why does that always make me think of the kickass Living Color song Cult of Personality?--and the Religious Right (hereafter RR).
Sodomy Laws. Sodomy laws are truly despicable. Even if they aren't prosecuted, they set up a dynamic where homosexuals (and in one of those oh-so-delightful ironies, in 10 states, heterosexuals) are defacto criminals. If I had a buck for every time some nutjob on the RR used a sodomy law as justification for some anti-gay action, even as relatively trivial as having Net access to non-porno gay sites at public libraries, I'd be retired to the south of England by now. This is played out with dozens of issues like adoption, hospital visitations and so on. "Why should homosexuals be allowed to visit their sick homosexual partners? They're both criminals". I realize that the RR needs a bogeyman to raise funds and rally the troops with since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it's depressing how much time, energy and money that could be better spent elsewhere is sucked up fighting these seemingly endless battles, large and small, with the much better organized and funded RR.
And of course, every time a sodomy law comes up for repeal, the RR fights like caged wolverines to keep it on the books. So, hyperbole aside, sodomy laws are just one of dozens of instances where the RR actively fights to make life for queers difficult. To equate the RR's documented actions with an abstract concept that is mainly the creation of conservative think-tankers and talk-show hosts is absurd at best, myopic at worst.
[quote]And while we're on the subject of whining and self-pity--when will you quit whining about the liberal media, and how conservatives are misunderstood in the gay community?
Amen to that brother. You're forgetting the best one: The Moderators at Outsports Have A Liberal Bias. As if, with co-founder Cyd being a total Republican.
[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
JC: The greatest thing to come out of Texas since ZZ Top's first album. Or Nolan Ryan.
What about Stevie Ray Vaughan? As for ZZ Top albums, I can't recall the first one. I do like the third, "Tres Hombres," from 1973. Is the first album better than that?
Obligatory link:
http://www.famoustexans.com/zztop.htm
JC: The greatest thing to come out of Texas since ZZ Top's first album. Or Nolan Ryan.
What about Stevie Ray Vaughan? As for ZZ Top albums, I can't recall the first one. I do like the third, "Tres Hombres," from 1973. Is the first album better than that?
Obligatory link:
http://www.famoustexans.com/zztop.htm
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
Here's a newsflash for ya: LIFE IS UNFAIR
It is my belief that the Cult of Victimhood has done more to sabatoge the lives and welfare of gays/lesbians than anything the religious right or the Republican party has thrown at us. Nobody can defeat you more soundly than you can defeat yourself.
Yes, and all those homosexuals whose lives have been destroyed in this country over the last 200 years by various witchhunts and harassments, arrests and imprisonments, who've lost their children and jobs, who've died because the government dragged its feet on HIV/AIDS, who've been expelled from the military despite exemplary service, etc., were nothing but whining victims? GIVE ME A BREAK! JC had it right....
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Here's a newsflash for ya: LIFE IS UNFAIR
It is my belief that the Cult of Victimhood has done more to sabatoge the lives and welfare of gays/lesbians than anything the religious right or the Republican party has thrown at us. Nobody can defeat you more soundly than you can defeat yourself.
Yes, and all those homosexuals whose lives have been destroyed in this country over the last 200 years by various witchhunts and harassments, arrests and imprisonments, who've lost their children and jobs, who've died because the government dragged its feet on HIV/AIDS, who've been expelled from the military despite exemplary service, etc., were nothing but whining victims? GIVE ME A BREAK! JC had it right....
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
God how I hate whining, I hate sniveling, and I hate self-pity. All three have risen to a fever pitch here, so this will be my last post in this thread.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
That is really weird. If you dont like someone who calls you a pedophile then your whining, sniveling and having self-pity. As opposed to admiring homophobic bigots. That would really take courage then you could feel proud of yourself. (sarcasm)
God how I hate whining, I hate sniveling, and I hate self-pity. All three have risen to a fever pitch here, so this will be my last post in this thread.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
That is really weird. If you dont like someone who calls you a pedophile then your whining, sniveling and having self-pity. As opposed to admiring homophobic bigots. That would really take courage then you could feel proud of yourself. (sarcasm)
Poor Ann -- now that ultra-liberal Washington Post is picking on her again!
Mystery of the Ages
Is Human Uzi Ann Coulter 38 or 40 years old? And when she insists that she's the former, is she telling a fib?
The right-wing media scourge -- who has been getting plenty of ink for her best-selling book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right" -- frequently scorches hapless reporters who dare write that she's no longer in her thirties. Newsday's Aileen Jacobson -- who was planning to rely on numerous published accounts, including People magazine's, that Coulter is 40 -- let her subject argue her into using the younger age in a recent profile. "Media accounts that she's 40 are wrong, she maintains," Jacobson wrote. But yesterday Jacobson told us: "I do believe that she is 40."
London Telegraph writer Toby Harnden, meanwhile, wrote in his July 19 piece: "An air of mystery surrounds Coulter's age. She says she is 38 but her publicist puts her at 40. After the interview, she sends me an e-mail: 'I think you should go with one of the incorrect younger ages.'"
Our own investigation revealed that:
Coulter's Connecticut driver's license lists her birth as December 1961.
Her D.C. driver's license, acquired many years later, says she was born in December 1963.
The birth date on file at the New Canaan, Conn., voter registration office is Dec. 8, 1961.
In an effort to clear up all this confusion, a member of The Post's crack research team phoned the New Canaan registrar of voters, who chuckled, checked his records and reported that Coulter registered to vote in 1980, when presumably she was the legal minimum voting age of 18. That would make her 40 today.
But when we reached Coulter, she predictably stuck to her guns. "It's like the difference in being thrown off the 13th floor or the roof," she e-mailed us. "So the upside is, I'm two years younger than at least some newspapers have said I am, but the downside is, I'm still 38. Yikes!"
Mystery of the Ages
Is Human Uzi Ann Coulter 38 or 40 years old? And when she insists that she's the former, is she telling a fib?
The right-wing media scourge -- who has been getting plenty of ink for her best-selling book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right" -- frequently scorches hapless reporters who dare write that she's no longer in her thirties. Newsday's Aileen Jacobson -- who was planning to rely on numerous published accounts, including People magazine's, that Coulter is 40 -- let her subject argue her into using the younger age in a recent profile. "Media accounts that she's 40 are wrong, she maintains," Jacobson wrote. But yesterday Jacobson told us: "I do believe that she is 40."
London Telegraph writer Toby Harnden, meanwhile, wrote in his July 19 piece: "An air of mystery surrounds Coulter's age. She says she is 38 but her publicist puts her at 40. After the interview, she sends me an e-mail: 'I think you should go with one of the incorrect younger ages.'"
Our own investigation revealed that:
Coulter's Connecticut driver's license lists her birth as December 1961.
Her D.C. driver's license, acquired many years later, says she was born in December 1963.
The birth date on file at the New Canaan, Conn., voter registration office is Dec. 8, 1961.
In an effort to clear up all this confusion, a member of The Post's crack research team phoned the New Canaan registrar of voters, who chuckled, checked his records and reported that Coulter registered to vote in 1980, when presumably she was the legal minimum voting age of 18. That would make her 40 today.
But when we reached Coulter, she predictably stuck to her guns. "It's like the difference in being thrown off the 13th floor or the roof," she e-mailed us. "So the upside is, I'm two years younger than at least some newspapers have said I am, but the downside is, I'm still 38. Yikes!"
Ann is well known for not letting facts get in her way. It comes as no suprise that she cant even tell the truth about her age!
If she really is 38 and she registered to vote in 1980, wouldn't she be guilty of vote fraud, which I believe is a felony? It says something about her self-image if two years are so important to her.
Me, I'm proud to be 42. Maybe it's a liberal thing (for me).
Me, I'm proud to be 42. Maybe it's a liberal thing (for me).
Ann recently made this comment on the Today Show:
"Political debate with liberals is basically impossible in America because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments."
That is an interesting comment since her book was full of instances of her "calling names", here are a few examples: half-wit, termagant, dimwit, blowhard, worthless silicone nothing, physically ugly. This half-wit, physically ugly, blowhard is on about the same level as "Miss Cleo", with apoligies to Cleo.
"Political debate with liberals is basically impossible in America because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments."
That is an interesting comment since her book was full of instances of her "calling names", here are a few examples: half-wit, termagant, dimwit, blowhard, worthless silicone nothing, physically ugly. This half-wit, physically ugly, blowhard is on about the same level as "Miss Cleo", with apoligies to Cleo.
I can't imagine what difference this age thing makes. First, fudging one's age is a woman's prerogative, as my grandmother used to say (my grandma would have loved Ann Coulter, I guarantee). Moreover, the fact that this is an issue just means AC's critics have nothing legitimate to say, so they have to attack her on some trivial issue such as this.
So, Raze, who's the "worthless silicone nothing" AC's talking about? I'm trying to guess, but I can't think. Barbra Streisand? Barbara Walters? Those are the first two possibilities that pop into mind. I've got to get that book.
So, Raze, who's the "worthless silicone nothing" AC's talking about? I'm trying to guess, but I can't think. Barbra Streisand? Barbara Walters? Those are the first two possibilities that pop into mind. I've got to get that book.
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Moreover, the fact that this is an issue just means AC's critics have nothing legitimate to say, so they have to attack her on some trivial issue such as this.
I'm not really participating in this one, but William, if you think her critics have "nothing legitimate to say", you haven't really been following this thread, have you? They've already criticized her politics and her beliefs and her style.
And it is pretty sad that she feels the need to lie like that about her age.
Moreover, the fact that this is an issue just means AC's critics have nothing legitimate to say, so they have to attack her on some trivial issue such as this.
I'm not really participating in this one, but William, if you think her critics have "nothing legitimate to say", you haven't really been following this thread, have you? They've already criticized her politics and her beliefs and her style.
And it is pretty sad that she feels the need to lie like that about her age.
I'm sure many of the people who thought it was perfectly reasonable of Bill Clinton to commit perjury during the Lewinsky saga think Ann Coulter should be ashamed of allegedly taking two years off her age. Now who says liberals don't have standards?
If anyone's still interested, Eric Alterman takes on Coulter in The Nation...
\"Devil in a Blue Dress\" by Eric Alterman
\"Devil in a Blue Dress\" by Eric Alterman
[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
I'm sure many of the people who thought it was perfectly reasonable of Bill Clinton to commit perjury during the Lewinsky saga think Ann Coulter should be ashamed of allegedly taking two years off her age. Now who says liberals don't have standards?
If Zsa Zsa Coulter wants to take two years off her age I could care less.... I think the whole point was that she plays free and loose with facts and its funny that she cant even tell the truth about her own age. I guess she should tell her publicist what age to tell everyone...pick a lie and stick with it!
I'm sure many of the people who thought it was perfectly reasonable of Bill Clinton to commit perjury during the Lewinsky saga think Ann Coulter should be ashamed of allegedly taking two years off her age. Now who says liberals don't have standards?
If Zsa Zsa Coulter wants to take two years off her age I could care less.... I think the whole point was that she plays free and loose with facts and its funny that she cant even tell the truth about her own age. I guess she should tell her publicist what age to tell everyone...pick a lie and stick with it!
[quote]I'm sure many of the people who thought it was perfectly reasonable of Bill Clinton to commit perjury during the Lewinsky saga think Ann Coulter should be ashamed of allegedly taking two years off her age. Now who says liberals don't have standards?
What on earth are you babbling on about? Honestly, where do you come up with your material? You come up with these absurd non-sequitars that sound suspiciously like they were lifted straight off of right-wing talk radio.
If it helps you sleep better at night thinking that Liberals unblinkingly supported Clinton's perjury, then whatever. Here's a possibility: Maybe, just maybe, a certain portion of Liberals thought that Clinton was a sleazy used car salesman and thought he was scum for all that he did, but reveled in seeing the sanctimonious hypocrites that populated both sides of the aisle get hoisted on their own petards. Yeah, Newt Gingrich, I'm lookin' at you, you f**k. Love the sinner, hate the sin, is the phrase, I believe.
Favorite lines from the Alterman article:
[quote]Do I exaggerate? While promoting her hysterical screed against "liberals"--a category so large she occasionally includes, I kid you not, Andrew Sullivan
(Defensively, cuz I think he's cute) Hey, lay off Andrew. He's got enought troubles these days. [Homer voice] Mmmmmmm....Andrew Sullivan..........
[quote](snip) and being quoted as constitutional gospel by alleged intellectual George Will
Exactly. And his writings on baseball suck too.
[quote]So what's the deal? Is looking like an anorexic Farrah Fawcett and wearing skirts so short they lack the dignity and reserve of Monica Lewinsky's thong
It's all about Clinton, baby.
[quote]Coulter's done far worse since, of course, and yet, like one of those Mothralike creatures that feed on bullets and squashed Japanese villagers, the monster continues to grow, debasing everyone and everything in its wake.
Mothra kicks ass.
[quote]Coulter jokes about McVeigh blowing up the Times, and the Wall Street Journal--which was blown up by terrorists on September 11--rushes to her defense. Their man, Daniel Pearl, was murdered by terrorists in Pakistan. Have they no shame? At long last, have they no sense of decency left?
Exactly.
[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
What on earth are you babbling on about? Honestly, where do you come up with your material? You come up with these absurd non-sequitars that sound suspiciously like they were lifted straight off of right-wing talk radio.
If it helps you sleep better at night thinking that Liberals unblinkingly supported Clinton's perjury, then whatever. Here's a possibility: Maybe, just maybe, a certain portion of Liberals thought that Clinton was a sleazy used car salesman and thought he was scum for all that he did, but reveled in seeing the sanctimonious hypocrites that populated both sides of the aisle get hoisted on their own petards. Yeah, Newt Gingrich, I'm lookin' at you, you f**k. Love the sinner, hate the sin, is the phrase, I believe.
Favorite lines from the Alterman article:
[quote]Do I exaggerate? While promoting her hysterical screed against "liberals"--a category so large she occasionally includes, I kid you not, Andrew Sullivan
(Defensively, cuz I think he's cute) Hey, lay off Andrew. He's got enought troubles these days. [Homer voice] Mmmmmmm....Andrew Sullivan..........
[quote](snip) and being quoted as constitutional gospel by alleged intellectual George Will
Exactly. And his writings on baseball suck too.
[quote]So what's the deal? Is looking like an anorexic Farrah Fawcett and wearing skirts so short they lack the dignity and reserve of Monica Lewinsky's thong
It's all about Clinton, baby.
[quote]Coulter's done far worse since, of course, and yet, like one of those Mothralike creatures that feed on bullets and squashed Japanese villagers, the monster continues to grow, debasing everyone and everything in its wake.
Mothra kicks ass.
[quote]Coulter jokes about McVeigh blowing up the Times, and the Wall Street Journal--which was blown up by terrorists on September 11--rushes to her defense. Their man, Daniel Pearl, was murdered by terrorists in Pakistan. Have they no shame? At long last, have they no sense of decency left?
Exactly.
[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Thanks for the endorsement, Jim, but just to set the record straight--I didn't come out of Texas. I came out of Ontario and just accidentally dropped into Texas.
William, actually the comparison of Ann Coulter lying on her driver's license application (I'm not a lawyer, but surely that's illegal) is reasonably comparable to Clinton's perjury. Both are censurable, but neither constitutes a sufficient reason to impeach a president, IMHO.
William, actually the comparison of Ann Coulter lying on her driver's license application (I'm not a lawyer, but surely that's illegal) is reasonably comparable to Clinton's perjury. Both are censurable, but neither constitutes a sufficient reason to impeach a president, IMHO.
Er, um, OK. JC: Best thing to come out of Ontario since Rush's Farewell to Kings album.
It's almost pitiful how easy it is to mock BoSoxRudy's CoV = queers problems nonsense. I saw this in today's LA Times (I can't get the link to work, so I'll paste it here): [quote]MIAMI -- The county where orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant mounted a crusade against gay rights 25 years ago is taking up the issue again.
In 1977, Miami was the site of one of the biggest battles of the gay rights movement when Bryant, then a successful pop singer, led a drive that repealed a Miami-Dade County ordinance protecting gays from discrimination. A new such ordinance was passed in 1998, and now gay rights opponents again want to overturn it. The repeal measure is on Tuesday's ballot. This time, though, the fight is not nearly as furious as it was a generation ago. Gay rights supporters have higher-profile backing than they enjoyed back then. And a poll released Wednesday by the Miami Herald found that the repeal effort is likely to fail.
The telephone poll of 600 probable voters found 54% against repeal, 34% in favor and 12% undecided. Gay rights activists are fighting the measure and similar ones on the November ballot in Tacoma, Wash., and Ypsilanti, Mich. "It's important that we beat back these repeal attempts," said Seth Kilbourn of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign. "All we're asking for is to be treated equally."
Corporations such as BellSouth and Carnival Cruise Lines have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to preserve the ordinance, and 18 of the county's 32 mayors, including Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas, have expressed support. Officials from the Democratic National Committee have warned that repealing the ordinance could hurt Miami's chances of hosting the party's 2004 convention. "We're a world-class city and we can't allow a small minority painting us as a community that favors discrimination," said Georg Ketelhohn, co-chair of the No to Discimination/Save Dade campaign.
Gay rights opponents say homosexuals are seeking special treatment, not equal rights. "There's no ordinance protecting people with three nostrils," said Matt Dupree, director of the Florida Christian Coalition. According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, from 66,000 to 85,000 gays and lesbians live in Miami-Dade County. Miami-Dade's ordinance was reinstated at the end of a decade that saw the passage of gay rights measures in cities across the country. Florida is one of 38 states without a state law banning discrimination against gays.
Since the 1998 ordinance was adopted, Miami-Dade's Equal Opportunity Board has received nearly 70 complaints of anti-gay discrimination. Alexandra Rodil of Miami filed a complaint in 2000 when she was fired from a real estate firm two days after her employer learned she was a lesbian. The board sided with Rodil, and she reached a settlement with the firm. "This is not about special rights, this is about equality," Rodil said. "Am I not the kind of person who deserves a job?"
Miami lawyer Rosa Armesto de Gonzalez, an opponent of the gay rights ordinance, said gays have not proved a need for special protection as have blacks and others covered by civil rights laws. "Everything they've asked for, they're given," she said. Months of campaigning by conservatives returned the issue to the ballot despite the arrests of four people--including that of the county's Christian Coalition leader--on charges they submitted false signatures.
Elsewhere around the country, a November ballot measure in Nevada will ask voters to ban same-sex marriages. In Oregon, conservatives want to put a measure on the ballot to prohibit any discussion in public schools that casts a positive light on gayness.
My favorite quotes: [quote]"There's no ordinance protecting people with three nostrils," said Matt Dupree, director of the Florida Christian Coalition.
Man, the pearls they come up with. [quote]Miami lawyer Rosa Armesto de Gonzalez, an opponent of the gay rights ordinance, said gays have not proved a need for special protection as have blacks and others covered by civil rights laws. "Everything they've asked for, they're given," she said.
That's so true! The ability to marry; the ability to acess the 1,300 or so tax laws that favor married heterosexuals; the unlimited right to visit sick partners in the hospital; the right to not be prosecuted for having sex; and on and on, all ours!
Oh wait. They're not. Yep, those whiny, self-pitying queers--architects of their own woe.
It's almost like shooting fish in the barrel, it is.
It's almost pitiful how easy it is to mock BoSoxRudy's CoV = queers problems nonsense. I saw this in today's LA Times (I can't get the link to work, so I'll paste it here): [quote]MIAMI -- The county where orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant mounted a crusade against gay rights 25 years ago is taking up the issue again.
In 1977, Miami was the site of one of the biggest battles of the gay rights movement when Bryant, then a successful pop singer, led a drive that repealed a Miami-Dade County ordinance protecting gays from discrimination. A new such ordinance was passed in 1998, and now gay rights opponents again want to overturn it. The repeal measure is on Tuesday's ballot. This time, though, the fight is not nearly as furious as it was a generation ago. Gay rights supporters have higher-profile backing than they enjoyed back then. And a poll released Wednesday by the Miami Herald found that the repeal effort is likely to fail.
The telephone poll of 600 probable voters found 54% against repeal, 34% in favor and 12% undecided. Gay rights activists are fighting the measure and similar ones on the November ballot in Tacoma, Wash., and Ypsilanti, Mich. "It's important that we beat back these repeal attempts," said Seth Kilbourn of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign. "All we're asking for is to be treated equally."
Corporations such as BellSouth and Carnival Cruise Lines have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to preserve the ordinance, and 18 of the county's 32 mayors, including Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas, have expressed support. Officials from the Democratic National Committee have warned that repealing the ordinance could hurt Miami's chances of hosting the party's 2004 convention. "We're a world-class city and we can't allow a small minority painting us as a community that favors discrimination," said Georg Ketelhohn, co-chair of the No to Discimination/Save Dade campaign.
Gay rights opponents say homosexuals are seeking special treatment, not equal rights. "There's no ordinance protecting people with three nostrils," said Matt Dupree, director of the Florida Christian Coalition. According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, from 66,000 to 85,000 gays and lesbians live in Miami-Dade County. Miami-Dade's ordinance was reinstated at the end of a decade that saw the passage of gay rights measures in cities across the country. Florida is one of 38 states without a state law banning discrimination against gays.
Since the 1998 ordinance was adopted, Miami-Dade's Equal Opportunity Board has received nearly 70 complaints of anti-gay discrimination. Alexandra Rodil of Miami filed a complaint in 2000 when she was fired from a real estate firm two days after her employer learned she was a lesbian. The board sided with Rodil, and she reached a settlement with the firm. "This is not about special rights, this is about equality," Rodil said. "Am I not the kind of person who deserves a job?"
Miami lawyer Rosa Armesto de Gonzalez, an opponent of the gay rights ordinance, said gays have not proved a need for special protection as have blacks and others covered by civil rights laws. "Everything they've asked for, they're given," she said. Months of campaigning by conservatives returned the issue to the ballot despite the arrests of four people--including that of the county's Christian Coalition leader--on charges they submitted false signatures.
Elsewhere around the country, a November ballot measure in Nevada will ask voters to ban same-sex marriages. In Oregon, conservatives want to put a measure on the ballot to prohibit any discussion in public schools that casts a positive light on gayness.
My favorite quotes: [quote]"There's no ordinance protecting people with three nostrils," said Matt Dupree, director of the Florida Christian Coalition.
Man, the pearls they come up with. [quote]Miami lawyer Rosa Armesto de Gonzalez, an opponent of the gay rights ordinance, said gays have not proved a need for special protection as have blacks and others covered by civil rights laws. "Everything they've asked for, they're given," she said.
That's so true! The ability to marry; the ability to acess the 1,300 or so tax laws that favor married heterosexuals; the unlimited right to visit sick partners in the hospital; the right to not be prosecuted for having sex; and on and on, all ours!
Oh wait. They're not. Yep, those whiny, self-pitying queers--architects of their own woe.
It's almost like shooting fish in the barrel, it is.
JC is nice, sure...
but Jim Allen is my new hero.
What if you have three nostrils and are gay?
I know, that makes little sense and is totally irrelevant, but I really like the phrase three nostrils.
but Jim Allen is my new hero.
What if you have three nostrils and are gay?
I know, that makes little sense and is totally irrelevant, but I really like the phrase three nostrils.
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
God how I hate whining, I hate sniveling, and I hate self-pity. All three have risen to a fever pitch here, so this will be my last post in this thread.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
How can you possibly like Ann Coulter if you hate whining, sniveling and self-pity? Thats her whole act!!!
God how I hate whining, I hate sniveling, and I hate self-pity. All three have risen to a fever pitch here, so this will be my last post in this thread.
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
How can you possibly like Ann Coulter if you hate whining, sniveling and self-pity? Thats her whole act!!!
In a duplicate thread, TRL posted:
Anybody fond of the babe?
DCBucky replied:
You will find every possible answer to that question right here ...
TRL replied:
Thank you! How refreshing! Ann came up in an email conversation earlier today. I should have known, Outsports P & R had a hefty tome on her. My favorite comment, "Sorority Girl Shock Jock"!
Anybody fond of the babe?
DCBucky replied:
You will find every possible answer to that question right here ...
TRL replied:
Thank you! How refreshing! Ann came up in an email conversation earlier today. I should have known, Outsports P & R had a hefty tome on her. My favorite comment, "Sorority Girl Shock Jock"!
QUOTE
My favorite comment, \"Sorority Girl Shock Jock\"!
She's actually more of a chain-smoking, lying skank Bitch!
More wisdom and insight from Ann this week. From Ann's How To Lose A War.
QUOTE
In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did.
Hurry up Ann, your 15 minutes is almost up, time to go back to the zoo with the other giraffes.
you really need to get over this thing you have for ann... really, it's becoming a problem raze.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
How can you possibly like Ann Coulter if you hate whining, sniveling and self-pity? Thats her whole act!!!
Disagree with her if you will, but she's hardly as you describe. Aggressive to the point of overbearing, perhaps, but certainly not a whiner or sniveler. And how can a lady without pity - she takes no prisoners in her campaign - be self-pitying? No, I love her exactly as she is - one of the few great and original minds writing today.
How can you possibly like Ann Coulter if you hate whining, sniveling and self-pity? Thats her whole act!!!
Ann Coulter is essentially Rush Limbaugh (i.e., right wing hate-spewing lunatic fringe kook) in the body of a supermodel. This is a Frankenstein-like aberration so freaky that I prefer to think of her as a computer generated image. Or better yet, not at all.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.