« Dear God, Give Me Strength... | Main | The DimWitted: They're Everywhere »

March 03, 2007

The Ann Coulter/Glenn Greenwald Love Connection

love.jpgAdmit it. Hidden deep within the recesses of your unconscious mind... at some primordial level... you've always known. They totally deserve each other. Think about it - they're two peas in a pod:

Sweeping, broad brush rhetoric? Check.

Always outraged about something? Check.

Desperate need to command center stage? Check.

Chock full of facile, brainy arrogance? Check.

Legions of adoring fans? Check.

And the best part is, they're both lawyers!

The thing is, when the half-vast editorial staff sees something packaged up this neatly we can't help but suspect something's going on beneath the sheets, if you get our drift.

And we think you do:

So Ann Coulter appeared as a featured speaker today at the Conservative Political Action Conference -- the preeminent conservative event of the year -- and called John Edwards a "faggot." Her speech was followed by an enthusiastic round of applause from the upstanding attendees.

Last year at the same event, she warned Arab "ragheads" about violence that would be done to them and called for Supreme Court justices to be murdered -- and received standing ovations. Everyone knows what a rancid hate-monger she is, yet (or rather: "therefore") she continues to be invited to the highest-level "conservative" events, be drooled on with admiration by presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, and have little right-wing warriors wait in line around the corner to get her signature on their copies of the books she wrote.

But that's all fine. There are much more important topics to discuss -- like the anonymous commenters at Huffington Post and the bad words said by the bloggers hired for low-level positions by the Edwards campaign. Those are matters of the gravest importance meriting the most solemn condemnation and righteous outrage from all decent people. Those HuffPost commenters have uttered terrible thoughts, and that shows the anger, venom and hatred on the left, among liberals. It is cause for great alarm -- and for headlines.

But the single most prestigious political event for conservatives of the year is a place where conservatives go to hear Democrats called faggots, Arabs called ragheads, and Supreme Court justices labeled as deserving of murder -- not by anonymous, unidentifiable blog commenters, but by one of their most popular featured speakers.

And after she does that, she is cheered wildly by an adoring conservative movement that has made her bigoted and hate-mongering screeds best-sellers, all while they and their deceitful little allies in the media, such as Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, write idiot tracts about how terribly upset they are by the affront to decency from HuffPost commenters [in between writing obsequious, tongue-wagging profiles of Coulter's most radical ideological allies, such as Michelle Malkin, who penned a lovely defense of the internment of Japanese-Americans, for which even Ronald Reagan apologized (but, I believe, she never cursed while doing so, which is what matters most)].

This is why I wrote so extensively about the Edwards blogger "scandal" and the Cheney comments "scandal." The people feigning upset over those matters are either active participants in, or passive aiders and abetters of, a political movement that, at its very core -- not at its fringes -- knowingly and continuously embraces the most wretched and obvious bigotry and bloodthirsty authoritarianism. They love Ann Coulter -- and therefore continue to make her a venerated part of their political events -- because she provides an outlet, a venting ground, for the twisted psychological impulses and truly hateful face that drives the entire pro-Bush, right-wing spectacle.

Wow. Got bile? Let's boil those last few paragraphs down a bit:

...rancid hate-monger, drooled on with admiration, little right-wing warriors, bigoted and hate-mongering screeds, deceitful little allies, idiot tracts, obsequious, tongue-wagging profiles, wretched and obvious bigotry, bloodthirsty authoritarianism, twisted psychological impulses, truly hateful face...

Thankfully, it looks as though we can finally dispense with the whole diving into the anonymous comments sections of left-wing blogs looking for terrible hatred, anger, or venom thing.

Yessir. You'll never see a major Lefty blogger use such intemperate language towards an opponent, much less the 'entire pro-Bush movement', a rather diverse group of people who support the President for very different reasons and who all seem (or at least they would, if we didn't know this was just unthinkable!) to have been painted by Mr. Greenwald with a very broad and venom-tipped brush. Fortunately, these kinds of vicious attacks just do not happen on Salon.com, that sort of distasteful display being uniquely indicative of the twisted psychological impulses and truly hateful face of the pro-Bush camp (who, it must be said, are extremely difficult to Tolerate in a Loving and Progressyve Manner).

Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along.

We know from Mr. Greenwald himself that the Left are never spiteful, mean or hateful. Therefore, the only obvious explanation for paragraphs like this is that Coulter/Greenwald are in cahoots. In this we see Coulter's fine Italian hand. The two, apparently, are to be the new Matalin/Carville: Washington's latest Power Couple. Oh, to be a fly on their bedroom wall, watching spiders being snared in the webs they weave:

The more delicate ones will claim to repudiate her comments in the most limited terms, but their actions speak far louder than their cursory and reluctant words. Anyone who went to this event -- and that includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Dick Cheney -- knew exactly what they would be getting. Coulter's face was prominently plastered on the promotional material. The right-wing political candidates who accepted the invitations to speak there knew exactly the type of people would be there - namely, the type who continously cheer on Ann Coulter's bigoted and nakedly hateful screeds. Anyone who makes themselves a part of that event is purposely associating themselves with those sentiments. That is what this Conference is for.

Ah yes. Who among the wise can hope to withstand the gale force winds of irrefutable Greenwaldian logic? But here Glenn's past comes back to haunt him. Wanderers into that vast Unclaimed Territory otherwise known as the Mind of Glenn cannot help but be deeply saddened to note that he seems to have come full circle from the Good Greenwald of July, 2006:

...the point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. To the contrary, I was objecting to complaints made by numerous right-wing bloggers this weekend that "the Left" did not condemn Frisch’s reprehensible though irrelevant remarks with sufficient vigor and frequency and that this somehow means that they must approve of the tactics.

The point you attribute to me and then rebut at length — that everyone has an obligation to condemn vile comments or else be charged with approving of them — is not a point I made or believe. If anything, that was a point I was refuting.

...to the Evil Coulter/Greenwald of March, 2007:

The more delicate ones will claim to repudiate her comments in the most limited terms, but their actions speak far louder than their cursory and reluctant words. Anyone who went to this event -- and that includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Dick Cheney -- knew exactly what they would be getting... Anyone who makes themselves a part of that event is purposely associating themselves with those sentiments. That is what this Conference is for.

How sad, in just a few short months, to see all that is Good and Noble, corrupted by Evil Incarnate. How did we get from "it's not anyone's duty to disassociate themselves from every vile thing said by someone on their side and silence does not necessarily imply acceptance" to "even if you do disassociate yourself from a vile comment, I don't believe you because you should have known better"?

We suppose we should have expected this - after all, when you sup with the Devil, you must use a very long spoon.

This Unholy Alliance of the Reich and Left does not bode well for the upcoming silly season in Washington. One imagines future political conventions turned into virtual ghost towns, for who will dare to attend any large event knowing they might encounter diverse, thought-provoking, or even polarizing speakers for fear someone, somewhere, might say something which may cause Glenn Greenwald to alert the Denunciation Police?

What happens to intellectual inquiry when we begin to shrink from uncomfortable subjects, or perhaps merely unpopular ones, because just listening to an unpopular sentiment taints us as silent accomplices of the speaker, whether or not we agree?

The very thing Mr. Greenwald claimed to oppose last July - quasi-intellectual bullying posing as a morality test is now standard practice. What does he think of it?

According to his latest broadside, he seems to think none of us ought attend any conference, at any time, without having scoured the list of attendees in advance to ensure no one has never said anything objectionable. Because if they have, and they again make even the slightest verbal faux pas, we may be sure he feels entirely justified in assuming on no other evidence that not only do we approve of their comment, but we had no other reason for attending an entire conference, with many other speakers, other than to hear that particular person make a gratuitous and inflammatory remark:

The more delicate ones will claim to repudiate her comments in the most limited terms, but their actions speak far louder than their cursory and reluctant words. Anyone who went to this event -- and that includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Dick Cheney -- knew exactly what they would be getting... Anyone who makes themselves a part of that event is purposely associating themselves with those sentiments. That is what this Conference is for.

Keep that in mind.

And please pray for Mr. Greenwald. We can only hope he recovers from this dangerous obsession before it's too late.

Posted by Cassandra at March 3, 2007 08:54 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1328

Comments

HAHAHA!
Ann and Gleen
Sittin' in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love
Then comes marriage
Then comes baby in a baby carriage

Er, maybe not. But cats! Definitely cats!

(The heart! I laughed out loud when I saw the heart!)

Posted by: Beth at March 3, 2007 10:19 AM

By the way, from what I've read from people who are actually...you know, THERE (!), there was certainly NOT loud, uproarious laughter or thunderous applause, as Gleen Grenwald LIED. I also haven't yet seen any of the bloggers who are, you know, THERE (!) writing anything but condemnation.

That guy isn't only a hypocrite, he's a shameless filthy liar.

Posted by: Beth at March 3, 2007 10:25 AM

Doh!
I mean he's a liar liar pants on fire!

Posted by: Beth at March 3, 2007 10:26 AM

Hm. Well, the guy's a nancy-boy, but I wouldn't use that term for him.

I guess he figures that the non-literal truth is served....

Posted by: Sailorette/Foxfier at March 3, 2007 10:53 AM

I listened to a video of her remark and I heard some applause and some cheering.

It did sound as though there were people who did react favorably. It didn't however, sound to me like "wild applause" (Greenwald's description) but that was hard to tell b/c I didn't have any other applause to compare it to, volume wise. And the sound was poor - the "Ooooh" mixed in with some of the other noise and it was hard to tell what was what.

The thing with Glenn is that he always exaggerates wildly, and that is where he loses huge credibility. Like the last time I got annoyed with him, where he asserted that "every right wing blogger" had posted about something I hadn't even HEARD about over the weekend. Simply ridiculous - I was online all weekend. If I didn't even SEE it then "every right wing blogger" wasn't posting about it. He just makes stuff up out of whole cloth: four links becomes "every right wing blogger".

One or two isolated quotes becomes "the right wing". And then he shreiks like a baby if someone on the right does the same thing he does 24/7: troll the Internets looking for reasons to be pissed off and get your pantyhose in a twist. It's just a never ending cycle of idiocy and I get really tired of it all.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 3, 2007 10:55 AM

wow, you pseudo-conservative types are so mature. you stike out when people see screaming "faggot!" as the idiocy it is, so now it's glenn and anne sittin' in a tree?

truly, the adults have spoken.


how exactly is anything greenwald said wrong? is it not a fact that anne coulter is an invited speaker at an important convention, attended by the vice president of the united states? is it not true that a room full of pseudo-conservatives applauded her ignorant bigotry?

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 01:59 PM

"Are you now, or have you ever been ..." Really Grendel72, back away from the rhetoric.

Posted by: Mark V Wilson at March 3, 2007 02:09 PM

If conservatives don't want to be associated with hate speech a good first step might be not inviting bigots to speak. It's not like this is Coulter's first appearance at CPAC, and it's not like she's never said things like this before.

Conservatives do hate gay people. Your opposition to equal rights has no logical consistency, you whine about "activist judges" after cheering the supreme court appointing the President of the United States. Own your bigotry, Coulter speaks for you.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 02:44 PM

I'm going to give you the same advice I gave Armed Liberal last year. Don't talk about this woman. Just ignore her. Really.

Posted by: Grim at March 3, 2007 03:03 PM

Grendel -

"Conservatives do hate gay people. Your opposition to equal rights has no logical consistency"



... and you painting with that broad a brush is logically consistent? Humor us: how did you come to that "logical" conclusion? Or are you willing to amend your comment and single out only the people you can prove hate gay people?

Posted by: Bryan Pick at March 3, 2007 03:11 PM

Not a single argument against equal rights makes the slightest bit of logical sense.
You argue marriage is all about having children, then allow infertile couples to wed.
You argue about semantics then promote laws so broadly worded they invalidate any legal recognition at all.
Republicans argue in favor of reinstating sodomy laws, for christ's sake, then claim they don't hate gay people. Yeah, you just want us to be arrested.
Be honest for once, Coulter speaks for you. If you'd been in the audience you'd have applauded.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 03:19 PM

You didn't respond to what I said, Grendel. You're painting with too broad a brush.

Do all, or even most, Republicans argue in favor of reinstating sodomy laws? Do all, or even most, conservatives hate gay people? If so, prove it. If not, you're painting with way too broad a brush.

For example, I vote Republican fairly often. Try asking me what I think of Coulter; ask me my position on sodomy laws; ask me my position on SSM or marriage in general.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, you were making a point. You don't have time for messy things like the many examples that don't fit your hasty generalizations.

Posted by: Bryan Pick at March 3, 2007 03:29 PM

[Grimm's:] I'm going to give you the same advice I gave Armed Liberal last year. Don't talk about this woman. Just ignore her. Really.

Good advice, in a sense, and probably fine w/ respect to the Armed Liberal context (outrage over a typically hateful Coulter emailing). It doesn't, however, address the issue that there really does seem to be something different at play in this context here -- where Coulter is embraced and promoted "as a featured speaker today at the Conservative Political Action Conference" and hosannaed by folks there-attending (who no doubt heard from her the sorts of things that they expected to hear, and that the powers-there-that-be intended be said and heard).

Posted by: dgf at March 3, 2007 03:30 PM

For example, I vote Republican fairly often. Try asking me what I think of Coulter; ask me my position on sodomy laws; ask me my position on SSM or marriage in general.
You can't be too opposed to bigotry if you vote for a party whose sole campaign in the past few years has been how much they hate gays and Mexicans. When's the last time the Republican party did [i]anything[/i] fiscally conservative? It's been a while, but they sure do hate them some homos.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 03:36 PM

I think it was terribly wrong for Ann to call Edwards a "faggot". Pussy would have been much more appropriate, maybe sissy, or girly-boy.

An why are all the lefties have their panties in such a bunch about Edwards being called a "faggot" (not-that-there-is-anything-wrong-with-being-homosexual).

Now Edwards gets to explain to his constituency why he was offended by being accused of being a homosexual (not-that-there-is-anything-wrong-with-that).

And if someone did call Edwards a sissy, and accused him of being "girly", if he got offended, he could explain to his feminist constituency what is wrong with being a girl. :)

Isn't is a wonderful thing to be a lefty politician? Edwards is almost as much fun to watch as Mitt is on our side :)

Posted by: Tony at March 3, 2007 04:13 PM

great post--thanks...don't know if you've seen this video of Ann Coulter, but it's pretty classic:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/ann-coulter-gets-owned.html

Posted by: Minor Ripper at March 3, 2007 04:18 PM

Look, dgf, there are two ways to go about this.

You can recognize that this particular attention hound is a professional rabble-rouser who is empowered by dividing Americans against each other, and react to her words accordingly; or you can not recognize that fact.

If you do the second, you're apt to fall into the jumping-up-and-down-and-yelling-"See!-This-Proves-You-Hate-Me!" mode that Grendel here has selected. In this mode, you essentially play to the attention hound's game, by making her seem correct to say that it's impossible to use certain words without people screaming for your head. You also stoke your own fears, by assuming that she really does speak for anyone besides herself.

Alternatively, you could recognize her nature; and, you would then find a fair number of people right here who are trying to reach out to you and let you know that they regard her as a kook. If you then ignore her, she goes away -- we don't spend days talking about something foolish she said.

CPAC is surely blameworthy for inviting a professional rabble rouser to address it; but what is CPAC? Everyone who really cares about it attends it. I (speaking as a Democrat) wouldn't have even known it was going on this week if it hadn't been for this particular eruption. I still have no idea what they were talking about, nor do I care.

Mostly Americans of all stripes are better served by trying to get along, rather than turning on each other for the benefit of the political class. Never forget that it is the government and its parasites that are our common foe.

Posted by: Grim at March 3, 2007 04:18 PM

OT: Cassandra, you have an unclosed italics tag somewhere in this article.

Posted by: SDN at March 3, 2007 04:42 PM

the jumping-up-and-down-and-yelling-"See!-This-Proves-You-Hate-Me!" mode that Grendel here has selected.
So what would you suggest it tells us about conservatives when they cheer a speaker for whom the worst insult she can imagine for a political opponent has nothing to do with anything the opponent promotes or believces in but is simply to call him a faggot? Surely that indicates the deep and abiding respect for gay Americans the average conservative feels. Maybe when Coulter decides to use the n-word in reference to Barack Obama and is cheered by conservatives you can tell me how much y'all love black people.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 05:12 PM

I like a previous commenter’s observation that being a “faggot” is not an insult because “…there’s nothing wrong with that.” For those who condemn Ann, why is being called a homosexual bad? Are homosexuals evil? I doubt it.

I’ll defend Ann’s speech because she is MY bomb thrower. What I find interesting is reaction of many on the Right’s knee-jerk desire to disavow its bomb throwers like Ann. There seems little of this reaction on the Left. Is it to the kind of gentility that maiden ladies once exhibited? Are our pundits really that desirous of being told that they are good little boys and girls? If we disapprove, perhaps we can simply avert our gaze. It’s really not necessary to be shown to take a kick. Let’s leave that to the jackals and the sideline snipers.

Posted by: Moneyrunner at March 3, 2007 05:30 PM

"You can't be too opposed to bigotry if you vote for a party whose sole campaign in the past few years has been how much they hate gays and Mexicans."

I don't vote for a party. I vote for individuals who happen to belong a party. And they do happen to vote on issues other than those involving gays and Mexicans.

Posted by: Bryan Pick at March 3, 2007 05:30 PM

Grendel72 wrote, "is it not a fact that anne coulter is an invited speaker at an important convention, attended by the vice president of the united states?"


No. The VP was not there.


"is it not true that a room full of pseudo-conservatives applauded her ignorant bigotry?"


No. First, define "pseudo-conservatives" (whatever the heck that might be). Then prove that the room was full of them. And the video shows that not the whole room applauded/cheered.


Try harder next time, Glenn.

Posted by: Jim C. at March 3, 2007 05:58 PM

The post misses a pretty important point: the right is associated with Coulter; she was an invited speaker. This isn't some random commenter with no ties to the group being asked to disassociate.

Posted by: jpe at March 3, 2007 06:07 PM

"Surely that indicates the deep and abiding respect for gay Americans the average conservative feels. Maybe when Coulter decides to use the n-word in reference to Barack Obama and is cheered by conservatives you can tell me how much y'all love black people."

Maybe you can get that I just called CPAC a bunch of parasites, which was intended to indicate that I don't think I'm part of whatever they constitute.

Posted by: Grim at March 3, 2007 06:11 PM

No. The VP was not there.
Why does the CPAC website say he was? Damn lying conservatives...

First, define "pseudo-conservatives"
Modern conservatives who can't get enough big government, runaway executive privelege, etc. Basically everyone attending CPAC. Pseudo-conservative so as to differentiate them from real conservatives. I'd call them mullahs or theocrats if you prefer.
NOBODY should have applauded that crap. Listen to the video, it's a lie to claim the crowd wasn't eating that up. Why else would they have invited Coulter to speak?

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 06:16 PM

"...conservatives who can't get enough big government, runaway executive privelege, etc."

See? That's the spirit! I knew we could find some common ground if we tried.

Posted by: Grim at March 3, 2007 06:20 PM

This entire kerfuffle just proves that "shape-shifting" exists. Glenn Greenwald = Ann Coulter = BILL CLINTON!
Loose with the truth; have to occupy the center of the spotlight; never responsible for verbal bombs. Slick Willie in his many guises.

Posted by: Drew at March 3, 2007 06:49 PM

Grendel you are missing lots of points - maybe on purpose.

First, the idea that *all* Republicans/Conservatives love Coulter is just flat wrong. I'm of a more Libertarian bent but vote Republican more often than Democrat (both can earn my vote). I don't care for bomb-throwers of either ilk - including Coulter. I'd laugh at her comment only out of the unexpected outrageousness of it but I'll be damned if I applauded her for it.

Second, I'd say that your hypocrisy is showing in spades here. Greenwald, FireDogLake, Daily Kos, etc. etc. spew an extraordinary amount of venom at Conservatives. Are you at all surprised that many of them will applaud a woman who's willing to give it right back? Your assumption is embarrassingly clear even if you don't see it: when your side spews invective or lies about the motives or goals of Conservatives they are just "telling the truth" but when Conservatives give back in kind then they are hate-filled bigots. Sorry, pal, but it doesn't work that way.

Third, "faggot" is a terrible thing to say - a "faggot" is a bunch of sticks useful for burning. It is applied to homosexuals in a particularly menacing way; bringing back memories of their repression in medieval times by burning them. But it also has a slang meaning as well: "girly men" (people who place themselves at the sexual disposal of men). I don't see Edwards as homosexual and I doubt that you do. My sense is that the gross, inappropriate language was meant to strike at Edwards' manhood in the meanest way. I doubt, however, that I'll ever convince you of that. In fact, I know I won't convince you of anything because you have the dim-witted gall to say that Republicans' "sole campaign...has been how much they hate gays and Mexicans."

Show me what legislation proposed by Republicans would take anything away from the gay community. Your standard is "they won't recognize our relationships the same way as traditional marriage." History tells us that the normal standard is indeed murder, assault, imprisonment or outright repression. By any historical standard, the gay community in the US enjoys unprecedented freedom and NONE of that freedom is under any realistic threat whatsoever. Jeez, wait a few years and you're likely to realize marriage rights as well (I certainly wouldn't mind).

Yours is a classic example of moving the goals posts: if you don't support whatever we want this moment (gay marriage, open borders) then you are ignorant "hateful" bigots. When you get that, I'm utterly confident that you'll come up with something else to shove down the throats of the bourgeoisie.

Posted by: Wildmonk at March 3, 2007 07:02 PM

when your side spews invective or lies about the motives or goals of Conservatives they are just "telling the truth" but when Conservatives give back in kind then they are hate-filled bigots.
It's true, for the most part, and when a Democrat spews hatred of the type Coulter does by rote they are called on it by Democrats. See Joe Biden, for example.
"Christofascist", just for example, is an insult, but a substantive insult. And one that despite deliberate obtuseness on some people's part is clearly intended to differentiate between regular Christians and those who would impose their religion on others.
If conservatives want to insult Edwards they can damn well leave me out of it. If you can't see the difference there I guess there's no hope for you.
Show me what legislation proposed by Republicans would take anything away from the gay community.
Not that it will matter to you but in my very state, as in most states where y'all have forced anti-marriage amendments into the constitution the amendment was very deliberately worded broadly enough to invalidate protections we'd already gone through the hassle and expense of getting that any hetero couple can have for a $75 marriage licence. If conservatives didn't hate us, if they were being honest when they claim it's all about semantics, they could easily have written a law limiting marriage without effecting other legal arrangements. But that wouldn't give you the thrill of knowing you're better than someone, would it?
In Michigan after claiming all through the campaign that their amendment was just about marriage the first thing they did was to strip insurance from domestic partners. Because it isn't about semantics. It's about hurting people. There's no thrill unless people suffer for your beliefs.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 08:23 PM

Hold on for a second. I heard Grace call Will worse and he never took umbrage.
And since when do Democrats care what Miss Adam's Apple has to say?

What I really need to know, is the Breck Girl somewhat gay, mostly gay, or really quite sincerely gay?

Posted by: Papertiger at March 3, 2007 08:29 PM

If I understand the law correctly, that applies only to employees of state-run institutions. Since those are funded by taxpayers, in effect what is being said is that the state can't require you to pay for a gay couple's "marriage" benefits.

Given that the ballot initiative was approved by 59% of voters in Michigan -- a state with two Democratic Senators -- I'd say you've got a bigger problem than "conservatives" or "Republicans." What you want just isn't real popular with anybody.

Doesn't mean they hate you, though. Just that they don't agree about your definitions of what's fair and right.

Posted by: Grim at March 3, 2007 08:41 PM

Right, it's not hate you just want to make sure we can't be at our loved one's side if they get sick. You don't hate us you just want to insure we're treated as second class citizens.
And it certainly isn't hate when you laugh and applaud someone calling a politician a faggot.
Don't be pissed at Glenn Greenwald for pointing out that the major "conservative" gathering in the country bears more resemblance to a klan rally. Be pissed at CPAC, and Coulter, and the people who have made it that way.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 08:59 PM

No one's pissed at Glenn Greenwald.

We just think he's silly.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 3, 2007 09:00 PM

Right, it's not hate you just want to make sure we can't be at our loved one's side if they get sick. You don't hate us you just want to insure we're treated as second class citizens.

Well, actually, I have a confession to make. I really do hate gay people. In fact, I have a whole slew of them chained up in the basement. Why? Because I just... you know, love inflicting pain on gay people? Why? Well, Grendel72 understands perfectly. All conservatives hate gay people and, you know, pretty much everything we think, feel, or do is predicated on hurting them in just about every conceivable way.

Because, socialized health care? We just want to keep gay people from getting medical help when sick.

Posted by: OHNOES at March 3, 2007 10:58 PM

Right, it's not hate you just want to make sure we can't be at our loved one's side if they get sick. You don't hate us you just want to insure we're treated as second class citizens.

Grendel, please show me where this is the case. As far as I know, in any state of the union, you can go to a lawyer and draw up documents to assign anyone as your health care proxy. Sure, putting all the protections of marriage in place is a little more involved, and a little more costly than buying a marriage license. But you can still do it.

But what roasts your chestnuts is having to spend extra money isn't it. The fact that most homosexuals are naturally childless, and tend to be in the higher income brackets, it's not impossible for any two gay people to write each other into their wills, assign each other as health care proxy. Swear out restraining orders against hostile family members, etc.

I want you to be able to do that, and I will fight for your right and the right of anybody to do that.

The reason that marriage amendments to the constitutions of the states (and possibly federal in the future) is the crazy interpretrations issued by activist judges.

If you want "gay marriage", feel free to lobby your legislators to enshrine it in law. Change the definition of marriage legally to encompass any two people (or more people if that's what you like).

But when you want unelected black robed emperors to do your dirty work for you. Don't be surprised when the people collectively push back.

I don't hate gays. I don't want gays to be hurt. I will defend with my own skin a gay person being attacked. But please don't tell me you have some sort of "civil right" to be married to someone of the same sex.

Posted by: Tony at March 3, 2007 11:07 PM

Grendel, please show me where this is the case. As far as I know, in any state of the union, you can go to a lawyer and draw up documents to assign anyone as your health care proxy.
That is exactly what is meant by the phrase "marriage and incidents thereof" when conservatives write overly broad anti-marriage amendments. If you don't want to prevent people from being with loved ones in the hospital it would be remarkably easy to word such amendments to refer specifically to the word "marriage." But it wouldn't be nearly as much fun for you.
But when you want unelected black robed emperors to do your dirty work for you. Don't be surprised when the people collectively push back.
So you want to ban interracial marriage as well? The supreme court decided that marrying the person you love is in fact a civil right in Loving v. Virginia. For those who insist gays can marry someone of the opposite gender, surely you'd insist the Lovings could have married someone of their same race.
Interesting there was no "conservative" outrage over "activist judges" when the supreme court appointed the freaking President of the United States.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 3, 2007 11:34 PM

Grendel, it's called a "power of attorney".

http://www.ilrg.com/forms/powatrny.html

Do this for both members, and you're able to do just about anything, as you are legaly them.

The "incidents thereof" is to keep from making just marriage by a different name. There is zero chance that two guys will have a child. The lady down the road was told she'd never be able to have children-- her two boys and little girl kinda show that she can.

Posted by: Sailorette/Foxfier at March 4, 2007 12:21 AM

The "incidents thereof" is to keep from making just marriage by a different name.
And here I thought your only objection was the name "marriage." Or at least I would if I trusted anything "conservatives" have to say on the subject.
Tell me, what purpose is served by preventing "marriage under another name"? Do you sleep better at night knowing loving couples can't have what you have, and that makes you oh so very special?
For the record, honey, I have a power of attourney, and in my state it is meaningles post marriage amendment, according to my lawyer I have to hope nobody challenges it.
Some states that have such overly broad amendments have had specific exemptions for hospital visitation come to a vote (Virginia, for one), and guess who campaigned against the exemption. I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "c" and ends with an "onservatives". You know, the same people who laugh and cheer when Anne Coulter calls someone a faggot.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 12:41 AM

Grendel, if I call you something else, you're still you.

You're the one trying to redefine an ancient tradition which is the basis of our society, and doing so in a very hateful way.

You really should look into some mental help, be it a hobby for stress relief or professional. Projection just isn't healthy.

Posted by: Sailorette/Foxfier at March 4, 2007 01:03 AM

Grendel, if I call you something else, you're still you.
But apparently we aren't even allowed to call marriage by another name. I guess we might get gay cooties on it and suddenly you'd be forced to get a divorce or marry the neighbor's dog, I'm not quite sure exactly. What exactly is the terrible consequence of a loving couple being able to share their life together and calling it something other than marriage, since that seems to be right out according to you? What is so terrible about me being able to visit my husband in the hospital that you just can't allow it?

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 01:21 AM

You want to know how to entrench gays in society? Make the gay life style cost effective. Give them the same tax breaks and incentives that married couples enjoy, without the monetary liability of procreation. Then make sure to not ever enforce the border. IN fact, go to Mexico and expressly invite low wage Mexicans to come get a job in America.
Then you have low wage single foreigners in direct competion with young people who are otherwise capable of raising a family, but can't find anyone who will hire them on, in the sort of stable job that would be necessary, if you are going to raise kids.
Mexicans are cheaper don't you know.

Posted by: Papertiger at March 4, 2007 02:12 AM

Cassandra would it be alright if I cursed. I don't really feel that I can express my true contempt for the creature named Grendel without foul language.

Posted by: Papertiger at March 4, 2007 02:23 AM

I'm sure Anne Coulter has some recommendations if you're looking for insults.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 09:28 AM

Grendel, may I make a suggestion here? Or perhaps just ask a question?

Who pulled your string yesterday?

You have been relentlessly hurling insults since you showed up here, yet my readers have been calmly trying to engage you in a conversation. I understand that you are upset about the current state of the law on gay marriage. I am sorry about that. There are people who sympathize with you here, and those who don't. A few of the people who read and comment here are gay, Grendel. And some of them are also conservatives. That seems to conflict with your view of the world, but don't let those annoying little facts kick you on the tushie as you exit the clue bus.

Another thing I understand is this: no matter how much anyone talks to you, and no matter how patient or nice anyone is to you despite your insults, you yourself are very bitter and bigoted. You have have lumped all conservatives into the same bin and you are bound and determined to go on believing we all hate gays.

There is a word for this. It's called prejudice.

And no amount of talking, or reason, or evidence, or facts, changes prejudice if someone's heart and mind are closed.

Now if you lob insults at other people for two days, sooner or later they are going to feel a very natural and human impulse to return the favor, at which you, being not too brite, pat yourself on the back and say, "See - they DO hate gays! Yee ha."

What a maroon. Grow up. You just created the reality you wanted to see.

The world is full of reasons people can dislike you. If you go around acting like an obnoxious toad, people will see only an obnoxious toad are resist anything you have to say.

If, on the otter heiny, you attempt to meet your opponent halfway you are far likelier to find they will bend to try and accommodate you. I am sure your mother told you all of this when you were growing up. I shouldn't have to tell you again. But there it is.

The bottom line on gay marriage is simply this: the way our system of laws is structured, there is no federal civil right to gay marriage arising in the Constitution because marriage has always been a matter reserved unto the States under federalism. I don't write about gay marriage because I wrote about it extensively three years ago and have said all I wish to on the subject.

I do not, NOR FRANKLY DO MOST OF MY READERS, LAST TIME I CHECKED, favor a federal marriage amendment because that is a perversion of the Constitution and of federalism. However, if at some point a majority of the American people wish to enshrine such a ludicrous thing into the Constitution, they may, of course, do so provided someone can convince them this is in their best interest. I think we'll see elephants fly before that happens.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with DEMOCRACY: you guys need to convince your fellow citizens, in each state of the rightness of your cause. It's slow, it's tortuous, but it's the law.

Period. And trying to circumvent that by extralegal judicial activism like having unelected judges discovering heretofore unsuspected "rights" in the Constitution that weren't there before is the wrong answer. It was wrong when it happened in Roe, and it's wrong now. The end does not justify the means.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 09:58 AM

Let's try this again.

I said:
"Doesn't mean they hate you, though. Just that they don't agree about your definitions of what's fair and right."


You replied:

"Right, it's not hate you just want to make sure we can't be at our loved one's side if they get sick. You don't hate us you just want to insure we're treated as second class citizens."

Note the pronoun switch.

I said "they" because I was referring to "59% of Michigan voters." That will include a large number of non-Republican non-Conservatives, given that the same voter pool returns only Democratic Senators to Washington.

You immediately switched "they" for "you," meaning some group that includes me, but also must include that 59% of Michigan voters.

Now, that's an awful lot of people. You'd probably have to go a long way to find much that I agreed on with the majority of Michigan voters. To work the trick, you'll have to go way beyond notions like "Democrat" or "Republican" or "conservative" or "religious." I'm not sure there's a label for the group that would include all of us, so let's call it "Group X."

It's vaguely possible that everyone in Group X really hates gay people, at least at some subconscious level. If so, you're in for a very unhappy life.

On the other hand, it's more likely that Group X doesn't really exist in any politically useful way. It's more likely that people sort of break down the way we expect them to, having seen numerous elections over the years; and that, therefore, you really ought to focus your attention on that majority of Michigan voters rather than on some overarching conspiracy.

It's entirely possible you can do something with "them." If there really is an "us," however, so deep and broad as to include me as well, you're in trouble.

For what it's worth, I don't think there is. I think if you go to the Michigan legislature in a calm and reasoned way, and work at the things you want one at a time, you'll probably eventually get all of them.

Carrying on like you are, however, isn't productive. You just look like a person who can't tell the difference between the majority in a Blue State and "conservatives" or "Republicans." If you want to accomplish anything, you'll need to start by being clearer-eyed about who is on the other side.

Posted by: Grim at March 4, 2007 09:59 AM

She's a gal after my own heart.
One of Coulters biggest grievances is how Liberals are held to no standards of decorum while conservatives are held to the highest.

Like it or not, she is right in one very important way, and that is how the media, liberals and society in general have been selectively censoring what conservatives can and can't say.

Were she a liberal speaker saying similar things about Bush we would still be hearing the applause.

She has,in effect, been saying for years that it's time conservatives quit sitting around acting like a bunch of pompous overly cultured pussies and stated stirring up the Hornets Nest.

I happen to agree. I'm sure no one is suprised by that.
Go get 'em Ann!

Posted by: Joatmoaf at March 4, 2007 10:18 AM

Who pulled your string yesterday?
Anne Coulter. And the crowd laughing and cheering her idiocy.
A few of the people who read and comment here are gay, Grendel. And some of them are also conservatives.
I hope they think their tax cuts are worth it.
There are any number of issues where debate is possible. Bigotry is not one of those issues. You have nothing negative to say about Anne Coulter, a good number of your commenters are defending her hateful spew, and somehow people opposed to bigotry are the ones out of line.
I've already answered every single one of your supposed defenses of marriage discrimination. The supreme court did find in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a civil right. Marriage to the person of your choice, otherwise the Lovings could be argued to have been free to marry a person of their own race as easily as you argue gays can marry a person of the opposite gender. Where was the outcry over judicial activism when the supreme court appointed the President? When you are so blatantly inconsistent it's obvious the real reason you oppose equality.
It's not as if marriage was the only issue where conservative antipathy towards gays is obvious. You support job and housing discrimination, you support reinstating sodomy laws. Hell when a couple in Texas had the police break into their home and arrest them for being gay conservatives supported it. When the Governor of Texas (who approved of the harassment and arrest) ran for President of the United States you supported him.

To summarize: Anne Coulter calls someone a faggot, and you get all pissed off at people who object. George W. Bush supports policemen breaking into a gay couple's home without a warrant and arresting them, and you support him. You claim to be opposed to the use of the word marriage then support broadly worded constitutional amendments that not only prevent civil unions but invalidate already existing legal arrangements. And when, in Virginia an exemption to allow for hospital visitation was debated you opposed allowing gay people to see hospitalized loved ones.
But pointing out that someone paid to speak at a Conservative Political Action Committee alongside Presidential nominees and the Vice PResident himself was in fact speaking with the support of conservatives is completely out of line, and so much worse than actually calling someone "faggot" that not a word in your screed could be spared to say "hey, she was kind of out of line there..."

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 10:32 AM

You're definitely barking up the wrong tree if you think this crowd is in favor of sodomy laws.

Eh, Cass?

Posted by: Grim at March 4, 2007 10:37 AM

I wanna be Ann when I grow up. She is pretty, gutsy and smart. She is also thin.

She also has the reflexes of a commando. I don't see right wingers tossing pies at lefty pundits when they speak at college campii.

Face it. Mr. Greenwald is a mean spirited poopy head who is all upset because Ann has decided that if the left can dish it out, they can take it.

Good for her.

Posted by: Cricket at March 4, 2007 10:56 AM

Once again Grendel, you are confusing your emotions with the facts. No one said it was "out of line" for you to want to change the law - you are projecting your subjective feelings of discomfort onto other people. What we have all said is that if you want to change the law, you need to convince your fellow citizens of the merits because we live in a democracy.

And who is pissed off at "the people who object to Ann Coulter calling Edwards a faggot", Grendel? Where is the evidence? Yeah. I thought so. You can't produce it, can you? Again, you're making things up, and I don't have time to argue with a person who keeps conjuring up imaginary debate topics.

You totally need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I hear there's a great course over at the local junior college - it's called Nuance 101. The post lumped Glenn and Coulter into the same bin: irritating people who delight in flaming their opponents because it gets them a lot of attention.

Think about that for a few seconds, Grendel. Think real hard about it. Let me know if the big light bulb inside your head ever does manage to go on.

No? OK. I'll spell it out for you.

If you believe I don't like Glenn much, what does that logically imply about my feelings towards Ann? Hint: I don't think either one of them are really worth the time of day. I wouldn't invite either one of them to speak.

And stop with the tired old tactic of trying to blame me for what some of my commenters say. I don't control other people. You are acting like a three year old throwing a tantrum. Reasonable people understand that in a group, different people hold different views. They understand that a site owner doesn't control everyone.

This isn't Nazi Germany Grendel. I don't censor coments or impose some rigid ideological purity test as a precondition for holding conversations. And as for bigotry, if you really believe that bigotry is non-negotiable, then go home and take a loooooong look in the mirror because YOU are the most bigoted person I have run across in a LONG time. You are bigoted against conservatives and you will NOT entertain the idea that you might just possibly be wrong on that score.

And you cannot have a rational conversation with a person who already made his mind up before the conversation ever started.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 11:17 AM

The supreme court did find in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a civil right.

What SCOTUS found in Loving v. VA is that the State of Va. could not deny the Lovings the right to marry UNDER EXISTING VA LAW simply because one partner was white and the other was black when other mixed race couples were perfectly free to marry. The people of Va. still got to say what marriage was, however.

SCOTUS most specifically did not say that VA had to alter the fundamental nature of its existing marriage law in order to accomodate the Lovings.

What it said was that, absent some compelling state interest, Va. had no reason to arbitrarily bar a black/white couple from marrying, but let an Asian/white couple marry.

Now you may not find the compelling state interest argument for preserving straight marriage compelling, Grendel: encouraging stable two-parent families, ensuring the future of the human race through procreation, etc. But that is an argument the gay rights movement needs to make through the democratic process.

Loving v. VA is a very old decision and it is not clear precedent for the kind of judicial activism you seek.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 11:30 AM

Here's the text of the Loving v. Virginia decision. The miscegenation laws did not allow other mixed race couples, as you will see if you read the decision. The law did in fact require Virginia to change their marriage laws no matter what the bigoted majority of voters in Virginia thought about it. See, that's the wonderful thing about our system, we have checks and balances in place to prevent the majority from forcing their will on people unreasonably. This is the best damn country in the world, not American Idol. Human rights are not a popularity contest.
If the compelling state interest in preventing gays from marrying is to promote the further overpopulation of the world (never mind gays that have children, I guess their kids don't matter), post-menopausal women should be banned from marriage. I for one think it's sweet when someone finds love late in life, but i guess a compelling state interest is a compelling state interest. Unless you're just making stuff up rather than admit your real reasons for opposing equality...

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 11:59 AM

Did Ann call someone a faggot? I'm pretty sure she didn't. I only saw it once, but I thought she was making a point that saying "faggot" in relation to Edwards name would get any conservative in trouble.

The remarks she made at the podium, seemed to me, to be structured in exactly the same way that any and all Democratic fundraisers are.

Insults and add hominems up the wazoo. The difference is that she is a conservative, and THAT I believe, was her whole point.

It's OK for Obama and Sharpton to call people racist any time they feel threatened.
It's OK for feminists to call men chauvanists (I'm guilty of chauvanism) any time they want a new entitlement.

It's OK to scream and yell, to pout and hold your breath till you turn blue. It's OK to try to change a Law through the courts when the voters have already spoken.
All of that is OK. As long as you are a Liberal Democrat.
Leftnut Liberals are ruining the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at March 4, 2007 12:14 PM

It's also no wonder the Democrats have no platform if the most important topic they can think of is gay marriage.

Again Grendel, States make the laws relating to marriages. The Federal courts will only rule on those laws IF they don't conform to existing federal law.
Otherwise it's up to the voters of each individual state to decide.

The liberals won't stnd for that however, s they try protests and the courts to basically ignore the constitution.

You can't have it both ways.
You can either believe in the Constitution and live accordingly, or you not.

But you can't cherry pick it.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at March 4, 2007 12:22 PM

In the last half century there has been considerable erosion to the institution of marriage. Divorce has gone way up, single parenthood has also gone way up. It is my opinion that this is devastating to children and society in general. If one wishes to convince me that a change in what has been tradional marriage is a net positive for society; perhaps the best way to do it is not start the conversation by calling me a bigot.

Posted by: Pile On® at March 4, 2007 12:43 PM

She can be out there at times, but Coulter certainly can make me laugh ...

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

After being criticised by all the major Republican candidates:

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Of course Bill Maher's comments that the world would be better if the assassination attack on Dick Chaney had been successful will never be criticised by the Democratic candidates.

Posted by: Frodo at March 4, 2007 12:48 PM

Was Maher speaking at a Democratic organization fundraiser attended by Presidential candidates? The fact that you can't tell the difference between an outspoken Libertarian and a Democrat says everything there is to say about modern conservatism.
Maher is a douchebag but he was not speaking for anyone but himself.


"Government ought to be kept off our backs, out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms."- Barry Goldwater. Not much resemblance there to modern "conservatism" is there?

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 01:03 PM

The Goldwater quote sounds pretty good to me. So, what's the alternative? If you want that, vote for... Clinton? Obama? McCain?

You're not the only one who's looking at the political class and seeing bad actors. Who's the candidate for "Leave us alone"?

Posted by: Grim at March 4, 2007 01:15 PM

Was Maher speaking at a Democratic organization fundraiser attended by Presidential candidates? Maher is a douchebag but he was not speaking for anyone but himself.

There you go. Proof positive the Grendel's brain has left the house.

Every single Republican Presidential candidate is personally responsible (and agrees with) every single thing said by every single speaker at every single Republican convention. Even if they disagree with each other, which of course some of them will, on the issues. Even if they stick their foot in their mouth, as people have done since the dawn of time.

Please do not waste any more time arguing with this person. He stopped making sense so long ago that it just boggles the mind.

Of course we all understand that by Grendel's definition of things, Ward Churchill was "speaking for" liberals and for Hamilton College when he called the 911 victims "little Eichmanns".

After all, they knew what they were getting when they invited him.

You have to love the logic here.

Don't feed the troll.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 01:16 PM

Hmm. Tried to trackback but was unable to. Consider this a manual trackback, then.

Posted by: Jeff G at March 4, 2007 01:32 PM

Cassandra wrote regarding "Grendel":
Please do not waste any more time arguing with this person. He stopped making sense so long ago that it just boggles the mind.

*de-lurk*

Question: when did Grendel72 start making sense?

"AN OBJECT AT REST CANNOT BE STOPPED!!!"

*re-lurk*

Posted by: Patrick Chester at March 4, 2007 01:34 PM

Right, I'm a troll. I've not attacked anyone, even those commenters who feel the need to defend Coulters vile outburst. So open debate is trolling in conservative circles?

Grim asks a good question: Who's the candidate for "Leave us alone"?
You'll note I never defended Edwards, mostly because the offensiveness of Coulter's comment has nothing to do with him, but also because I happen to think he's worse than useless. We all have to decide what candidates to vote for, what issues are dealbreakers for us. I for one am not going to vote for a gun control extremist, luckily there are options both within and especially outside the Democratic party who respect the second amendment. Exploiting the base prejudices of the public is another dealbreaker for me, and unfortunately that one guarantees that for now no Republican can get my vote.
Draw your own lines, but realize that what you're willing to overlook says as much about you as what you stand up for. If you believe in Goldwater's philosophy the Republican party left you long ago. The Libertarian party might be an option.
Just don't try to justify CPAC inviting Coulter when they know what she is.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 01:55 PM

You are trolling if you continue to insult the people you are talking to when they are trying to engage you in a conversation. That is trying to incite instead of talk.

And when you keep changing the subject instead of responding when people have been polite enough to ignore your insults and respond to you. Which is what you have been doing, Grendel.

Since I complained about your doing that a few comments ago, you have toned it down a bit, for which I thank you. I am very happy to have someone who doesn't agree with us to debate with - I think that's a very good thing. But when people don't agree, we have to try extra hard not to rub each other the wrong way or things get out of hand, and coming onto a site loaded with conservatives and then making sure, in every comment, you call all conservatives hate-filled bigots is a pretty sure way to get yourself branded a troll. Trolls aren't interested in talking but just upsetting people and causing trouble.

You are welcome here (and I would never ban you) so long as you are reasonably civil. I understand we all get a tad het up when we argue about things we care about passionately, and so I have been way more than lenient in this regard. And I thank you for toning it down. But I do insist on some degree of civility, or there can be no debate.

Capish? :)

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 02:12 PM

By implying everyone is stupid or ignorant just because they wont see things your way, you are "attacking" our intellectual abilities.

You seem to only see what you want while ignoring everything else. Debates aren't won by stubborness or by trying to evoke emotional support from others.

That is what Liberals and Democratic strategists simply CANNOT understand.
They are effective only within your own little ideological clique, but when someone tries to point out an error in your logic, a contradiction in your ideology or a simply FACT that you guys don't like because you can't explain it, you drop that subject completely as if it never existed, and simply pick something new to complain about.

Your mindset(s) are like little spoiled children. Ann just gave you an ass whipping.

The tantrums that liberals throw don't impress those of us who like to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

I'll give you an excellent example of what I mean. Those people will join anything just to be included.

BEHOLD

A short movie that explains it well.

Posted by: Ann Coulter's Boyfriend at March 4, 2007 02:24 PM

You write faster than me Cassie, but we sometimes think alike.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at March 4, 2007 02:26 PM

regarding your earlier comment: The miscegenation laws did not allow other mixed race couples, as you will see if you read the decision. The law did in fact require Virginia to change their marriage laws no matter what the bigoted majority of voters in Virginia thought about it.

Actually, you were partially right here and I was partially right Grendel.

I re-read the decision.

The Va. Statute DID allow other racially mixed couples, but I chose a bad example. A better example would have been a black/Asian couple to marry. The Va. statute was only restrictive with respect to the interractial marriage of WHITES.

Any other race were PERFECTLY FREE TO INTERMARRY AS THEY PLEASED. So it wasn't racial mixing by marriage per se that was outlawed - only the dilution of the white race by marriage. And what SCOTUS said was that that did not present a compelling state interest powerful enough to override the 14th Amendment equal protection argument.

So somewhat ironically, Loving could be seen as a White civil rights victory in that it guaranteed them the right to marry blacks :)

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 02:27 PM

I'm still not clear on how Bill Maher, who has always been an outspoken libertarian is suddenly a Democrat now because he made a really obnoxious comment about the Vice President. Never mind that his comment was not made in a venue where he was invited to speak by Democrats. There is no comparison.

CPAC, and those present, are hurting conservatism. They are your public face. If you don't like being judged by that face you need to work to change it.
It isn't as if this is a one time event, it's as predictable as the sun rising in the East.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 02:31 PM

Let's see if I have this right. Ann Coulter speaks for all Republicans, and her joke about the use of the word, "faggot," sending someone to rehab is proof that all Republicans hate gay people?

We're talking one heckuva stretch, there.

I love Ann's response to the criticisms! She was making a joke, but it was also a statement about politically correct speech!

Bill Maher has been a liberal for a long time. He is a pundit, just like Ann, who constantly takes insulting jabs at R's and conservatives. I agree, there is no comparison between him and Ann Coulter, as he is truly a hate-filled person, who, at one time, actually HAD a sense of humor.

What scares me is the notion that, even among a lot of conservatives, any type of rhetoric by liberals is acceptable, but we have to hold conservatives to the highest standard imaginable, lest we be accused of, "reducing ourselves to their level." Poppycock!

I'm tired of seeing liberals call my President and my party "Nazis" and "homophobes" and, "mean-spirited poopy-heads," and blah blah blah, and not being called on it.


Those, like someone on this thread, who so easily buy into the liberals' anti-Republican, anti-conservative rhetoric are not those whom we are trying to persuade to our point of view.

I admire Ann for striking back at these libs who will hate her...and conservatives and republicans...regardless of what we say.

GO ANN!

Posted by: JannyMae at March 4, 2007 02:56 PM

So Grendel we can count on your support in the next election?

Posted by: Papertiger at March 4, 2007 02:59 PM

So Grendel we can count on your support in the next election?
Nominate Ron Paul and we'll see. Of course, the odds of a candidate who doesn't suck up to the Religious Right getting the nomination are pretty much non-existent.
It'd be nice to actually have a choice of candidates.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 03:12 PM

Why do people always say "hate filled bigot"?

Would this be.... as opposed to your love filled bigot?

Posted by: Pile On® at March 4, 2007 03:14 PM

So somewhat ironically, Loving could be seen as a White civil rights victory in that it guaranteed them the right to marry blacks :)
It was a victory for everyone. :)
While you are correct that the decision was based partly on the fact that limiting some marriages and not others was prejudicial, anti-miscegenation laws were wrong for many reasons beyond that. The wording of the decision makes it clear that the restriction of choice in marriage was found unconstitutional. I just don't see how it's possible for someone to read that and not see the anti-miscegenation arguments being repeated by the anti-SSM crowd now.

Pile On® discusses the failure of hetero marriage and asks how broadening the definition can help. first of all, I don't think it's up to us to keep your marriages together. We deserve equal treatment because we are people the same as you. But if you want to know what's hurting marriage in this country I think I can offer a clue: by nature when defining marriage to exclude people you have to discuss what marriage means. I notice one word notably lacking in all of the exclusionary explanations of what marriage is all about: "love". If marriage is only about tax breaks and children, no wonder it doesn't last. If you can't see the beauty in a post-menopausal grandmother finding love in her twilight years and wanting to be part of a couple, a cohesive unit, no wonder marriages are failing.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 03:49 PM

From the beginning of Grendel's first comment:

"wow, you pseudo-conservative types are so mature. you stike out when people see screaming "faggot!" as the idiocy it is, so now it's glenn and anne sittin' in a tree?"

Grendel later claims:

"Right, I'm a troll. I've not attacked anyone, even those commenters who feel the need to defend Coulters vile outburst. So open debate is trolling in conservative circles?"

You know, people can scroll up and read what you wrote before. HTH. HAND.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at March 4, 2007 06:00 PM

I notice one word notably lacking in all of the exclusionary explanations of what marriage is all about: "love". If marriage is only about tax breaks and children, no wonder it doesn't last.

Yikes! Grendel!

I am scared to death to go down this rabbit hole again (because you weren't here when this happened) but I feel utterly bound to disagree with you there.

I got married when I was only 19. This month I will have been married 28 years.

My husband and I were not 'grown up' by any means when we married.

I could give you every conventional excuse in the book for why our marriage should not have lasted:

1. We had kids right away when we had no money.

2. We were too young to know what we really wanted out of life.

3. We hadn't really gotten a chance to sow all our wild oats.

4. Gosh... over time we've "changed" so durned much - we're really not the same people we were on March 24th, 1979.

Guess what?

Marriage isn't about love.

It's about commitment. Love is a feeling, and feeling fade over time. Commitment is a promise you keep, and it's what keeps love alive when life doesn't turn out the way you thought it would. And if you don't understand that home truth no marriage, made in heaven, hell, or Massachusetts has a snowball's chance in hell of lasting.

Trust me on that one. Gay or straight, no importa.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 06:28 PM

Love is a verb.
I would add to Cass's reasons for a marriage to fail would be a life changing event such as death, disease or disabilities of either spouse or children of the marriage.

That is why you marry...to live life together.

Posted by: Cricket at March 4, 2007 07:20 PM

That is why you marry...to live life together.
Exactly. So why should some people be denied the recognition of that?
Nothing Republicans can do will stop me from living the rest of my life with my husband, but if they're lucky they can insure we can't see each other in the hospital, or have joint ownership of property in case something happens to one of us. Look at what happened to Sam Beaumont in my home state. Hooray for traditional family values.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 07:52 PM

Nothing Republicans can do will stop me from living the rest of my life with my husband...



Rest assured, I'm working on it. In fact, I'm just like all the Republicans you have nightmares about. The thought of you at all living a fulfilling life with a husband you love is anathema to me. Like all Republicans, I am completely devoid of any sort of human decency, and I will spend every waking moment hounding you in every way possible.



Geez, buddy, get over yourself. This sort of paranoia is bordering on a disorder of some sort.



And, of course, in all seriousness, I wish you and your husband good tidings and good health. Hopefully, neither of you will be IN a hospital, that we evil Republicans will never have a chance to post anti-gay gestapo at your husband's door.

Posted by: OHNOES at March 4, 2007 08:04 PM

D'oh! Botched the last comment! I thought I needed br tags because the preview post didn't include my line breaks. Sorry! Reposting so that it is readable.

Nothing Republicans can do will stop me from living the rest of my life with my husband...

Rest assured, I'm working on it. In fact, I'm just like all the Republicans you have nightmares about. The thought of you at all living a fulfilling life with a husband you love is anathema to me. Like all Republicans, I am completely devoid of any sort of human decency, and I will spend every waking moment hounding you in every way possible.

Ahem, /sarcasm.

Geez, buddy, get over yourself. This sort of paranoia is bordering on a disorder of some sort.

And, of course, in all seriousness, I wish you and your husband good tidings and good health. Hopefully, neither of you will be IN a hospital, that we evil Republicans will never have a chance to post anti-gay gestapo at your husband's door.

Posted by: OHNOES at March 4, 2007 08:05 PM

You seem to make everyones point for them Grendel.
You ask a question, it gets answered, you don't like, or can't refute it, so you ask a totally different one.
So what is the point in your circular chop-logic?

You're obviously not going to find any converts here. I think you know that, you just enjoy stirring up trouble.

Posted by: Joatmoaf at March 4, 2007 08:07 PM

*sigh*

Grendel, did you read the article?

Time after time after time, you see in there that the salient point was not that they were gay, but that that man did not have his will properly signed, nor did he take the simple step of changing the title of his real property from fee simple to joint tenancy with right of survivorship, in which case it would not have passed through his estate at all and we would not even be having this conversation b/c there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

From the article you linked:

"If any two people live together, be it hetero- or homosexual, they can leave property to each other," he said. "Mr. Meadows worked as a comptroller at a fairly large company. He handled all kinds of matters for the company and had a fairly large salary. He had the money and the contacts to properly will his land to Mr. Beaumont. For whatever reason, he didn't do what Oklahoma law requires."

Mr. Beaumont says that it's no surprise his partner didn't have his will in order. "When it came to work, Earl was a perfectionist," Mr. Beaumont said. "When it came to his personal life, he didn't know what was going on."

Or as my business law teacher used to say, no one can take away your absolute Constitutional right to make an ass of yourself.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 08:10 PM

You ask a question, it gets answered, you don't like, or can't refute it, so you ask a totally different one.
Not a single point I've made has been answered. Nor will they be, because you can't admit (maybe to yourself) why you oppose equality. The day "conservatives" are willing to debate honestly I'll probably die of shock.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 08:14 PM

"Not a single point I've made has been answered. Nor will they be, because you can't admit (maybe to yourself) why you oppose equality. The day "conservatives" are willing to debate honestly I'll probably die of shock."

Let me try, because I think I'm prepared to be honest about what I think and why.

1st: What same-sex marriage advocates want is equality.

I disagree with this notion because what you want isn't equal freedom to participate in the institution, but rather to fundamentally redefine its nature. Marriage has always been about uniting men and women. You want to redefine that basic nature of the thing.

That there is a fundamental change at issue should be obvious from the huge majorities opposed to it. As I've been trying to tell you, it's not 'conservatives' or 'Republicans' opposed to the idea; it's a large majority of everyone.

What you want to do is not obviously wrong on its face, but it isn't simple equality either. It's a major change to a foundational institution of civilization. That's the sort of thing that justifies a lot of caution on the part of the members of that civilization.

2nd: Loving is a precedent that supports same-sex marriage.

I disagree with this notion for the reason mentioned above. Laws against mixed-race marriages arose after marriage; they were thus a thing added on to the original institution, which could therefore be removed without changing the original institution.

What you are suggesting isn't to revoke some change in marriage, but to fundamentally alter the base nature of the thing.

3rd: Racist arguments bear great similarity to anti-gay-marriage arguments.

Insofar as there is a basic distinction between the nature of the two problems, as described above, an argument that failed to hold water in the one case may yet hold water in the other. This is like building a castle either on sand or on firm rock; that the castle built on sand fell down does not imply that the castle built on stone will do so.

Yet the castles are built according to the same rules of architecture.

4th: Some people who are against gay marriage are strongly hate-filled, and therefore anyone else who adopts the position is tainted by association.

Guilt-by-association is an informal fallacy, that is, an error in logic. Person A may have only bad reasons for holding that the world is round; it may be that he hates the kind of people he knows who say it is flat. That does not, however, make everyone who holds that the world is round a hate-filled crackpot.

5th: The Michigan example proves that people who wish to ban gay marriage and/or civil union benefits have harming gay people as their main (or at least as an) interest.

As the Michigan example limited its restriction to taxpayer-supported operations, it was most likely a compromise position. If it were intended to hurt gays, it would likely have banned everyone from extending benefits. As a result, it is most likely that it was the best compromise advocates of your own side could work out: it allowed private businesses to choose to back gay unions, but did not require anyone who felt a strong opposition to the idea to pay taxes that supported such things.

6th: At least some of the prejudice against gays is irrational, as for example certain religious beliefs.

Absolutely everyone holds irrational beliefs at the foundation of their ethical system. This has been recognized since the time of Aristotle. Sorting out these irrational claims is part of why politics never ends -- there can be no real solution to these problems.

Thus, it is no force to say that someone is being irrational about their basic moral tenets. Everyone always is.

7th: You, personally, hate gays and/or participate in prejudice.

I admit to having encountered the concept of homosexuality somewhat late, and to having found it strongly distasteful especially at first. I also encountered lesbians at about the same time, but have never had the slightest sense of disquiet about them; this, again, is irrational, but I don't mind to acknowledge it.

I'll also admit that I find the part of gay culture that tends towards falsettos and sashaying to be extremely distasteful -- but I would find it so even if there were no gayness involved. I have a strong aesthetic sense of what a man should be like, if he is a good man, and this (quite intentionally) stomps on it.

That said, I don't believe it is fair to say that I hate anyone. If I were inclined to hate people, I would certainly start somewhere else. I've gotten along well with gays, even the sashaying sort, that I've had occasion to work with. I can name one or two I genuinely like, in spite of the horrifying aesthetics -- and since it is part of their intention to horrify me, there's no use complaining that I shouldn't find it so. They would be disappointed.

Plus, I have enough devotion to the ideals of the American system to let people do what they want to do, even when I find it silly or disgusting. I only draw the line at that which is apparently harmful.

So: you don't need me to like you to find a political ally in me; but you do need to convince me that you aren't suggesting something likely to tear at the foundations of the Republic.

Conclusion:

I, and I believe a lot of people, will not easily permit gay marriage to be enacted. That does not make me your implacable foe, however. A slow, easy process of the sort we've described above can probably win its way through.

The key is that you need to recognize that you really are proposing something quite drastic, at least in the opinion of the vast majority of Americans. However prosaic it seems to you, we don't think it's the simple matter you describe.

What we want is two things: time to see how the experiment is playing out in Europe, and to examine what social changes (benefits or harms) it may create there; and also that we should try it here only a little at a time, and examine the changes one by one to see what harm or benefit may arise from them.

If you'll adopt a plan of that sort, you'll eventually, probably, get everything you want. If there are any major negative social consequences -- as you may feel is impossible but as many people feel is quite possible -- we'll have plenty of time to see them coming, make adjustments, and/or reconsider the issue. If there is nothing negative to come from it, about which you seem certain, you'll eventually come to have passed the whole program.

Keeping that in mind, you'll be able to advance slowly but constantly through the years. You're also free to ignore the advice, but it is offered in a genuine spirit of understanding.

Oh, and, if you die of shock from an honest debate, I hope your partner gets everything. I don't have any reason to dislike him.

Posted by: Grim at March 4, 2007 09:09 PM

I don't oppose equality, Grendel.

I oppose the notion that the recognition of homosexual, "marriage," is necessary for, "equality."

You and your, "husband," want to devote your lives to each other? ...fine.

You want to take the required legal steps that the men in the article you sourced were too careless to take, and will each other your property, etc.? ...fine.

You already have the legal right to do these things, but it's not enough for you. You want to force society to redefine marriage, which was ordained by God for one man and one woman. I have a problem with that, Grendel.

Because of that, you will accuse me of hatred and of opposing equality. You're a bigot, Grendel.

Posted by: JannyMae at March 4, 2007 09:12 PM

Oh, and, if you die of shock from an honest debate, I hope your partner gets everything.

Oh, please, please, please Grendel. Go out and get a good lawyer and draw up some papers to have whatever real property you own put in joint tenancy with right of survivorship with your partner, if you are TRULY committed to him for life. And have the rest of your property put into a living trust so that it doesn't pass through your estate. Or have a bulletproof will and living will drawn up.

The trust is better though, and if you back it up with a good will leaving everything you own to your partner it is really hard to see how anyone could disinherit him. First of all nothing of yours SHOULD pass through your estate, and on the odd chance it does, a validly drawn and executed will should not be challengeable. The article you linked didn't pass either of those tests, and gayness really wasn't the issue there.

Sloppy estate planning was.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 4, 2007 09:36 PM

Grendel -

At the risk of being branded a bigot, I'm going to tell you off in the most polite way I can.

I am a Conservative Libertarian. If CPAC is supposed to be some major organization that represents the conservative movement, how come the first time I'd ever heard of it is today, after the whole Ann Coulter brouhaha? Does this make me not conservative?

You seem to believe that George Bush and the Republican party are conservative. They are not. Nobody who supports larger government can legitimately claim to be a conservative. Associating conservatives with Bush is wrong. Bush is a Republican. The only reason he gets any support from conservatives at all is he is moderately less socialist than his Democrat opponents.

You view marriage as a "right". It is not. It is a privilege. Its origin is as a religious ceremony and sacrament, and it was only in the past hundred or so years that it became something that was sanctioned by the state. The government does not grant marriage licenses as a way to recognize emotional states. Civil marriage is about two things - taxes and offspring. The state only cares that you produce new taxpayers. As a homosexual, the likelihood of you doing that is extremely low. Therefore, there is no benefit to the state to acknowledge your relationship with a civil document.

Marriage is not now, and has never been about love. Love is an emotion, and emotion is not a sound basis for a relationship. Marriage is about the joining of families and the production of offspring for the furtherance of the species.

Homosexual marriage will not foster the furtherance of the species. You are an evolutionary dead-end.

Arguments about overpopulation are absurd. Without new children being born, who is going to pay for your medicare when you're too old to wipe your butt? Or was that something you were looking to import Mexican children to do for you? Oh, wait - I'm against unchecked immigration - does that make me a racist too?

And Ann Coulter is a shreiking harpy. She should be ignored. That anyone takes her seriously does not speak well of their intellectual fortitude.

There - I've made the trifecta: racist, sexist, homophobe.

Posted by: brian at March 4, 2007 09:46 PM

I love how you people seem to think you know more about my life and experiences than I do. We have spent much time and money (prior to the anti-marriage amendment in our state) to achieve some semblance of security. I am told by my lawyer that in our state such paperwork may or may not have any worth under the amendment. It could be dismissed as "rights and incidents associated with marriage."
We've done as much as we can, at much more expense than a marriage license, and it's a house of cards.
Harm is being done to actual living, breathing people. It could be easily prevented at no cost, without causing any harm to anyone. And conservatives want it to go on like that.

Posted by: Grendel72 at March 4, 2007 11:36 PM

Only on a post that is unequivicably critical of Ann Coulter would we be accused of being supportive.

Posted by: Masked Menace at March 5, 2007 10:28 AM

Man, I'm late to the party! Oh well........

Grendel, you said, I am told by my lawyer that in our state such paperwork may or may not have any worth under the amendment.

It's my opinion that you need a better lawyer.

That's my .02.

So.......does anyone know if they decided to bury ANS face up or down? I suppose it would depend on whether the cemetary needed more "mountain" views, huh?

heh
>;-}

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 5, 2007 12:42 PM

Grendel, I hate to argue with you, but a joint tenancy is a general form of property ownership that can be between any two people. It has absolutely nothing to do with marriage and it applies to things like bank accounts as well as real property. Are you telling me there is an amendment to your state constitution that forbids gays to own property as joint tenants?

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2007 01:05 PM

And actually, I should have said as JTWROS, which you have to specifically state or you do not get the right of survivorship.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2007 01:06 PM

So....Greenwald is a liar, and Coulter is exercising her free speech. One moron said the term "pussy" would have been better. And yet, not a woman on this thread objected. Cool! I guess its open season to exercise your free speech here. Needless to say, but I'll say it, Ann Coulter is a grandstanding dirty cunt. Or maybe I should use the term twat. Is that more exceptable? That fact that she has wallowed in an eating disorder for most of her adult life (which by the way is fact---entered programs a number of times). The general profile of someone with an eating disorder is lack of ability to be intimate (never married, generally alone---except the gay Matt Drudge), deep seated anger, and a certain awkward uncomfortableness when around people of character (as witnessed by the fact that Ann is invited anywhere, nor will appear, on anything but Fox News). Any historian of merit has roundly laughed at her books and titles, especially the one praising McCarthy, who by the way was a closet homosexual who visited gay bars for sex routinely. I guess that is who Ann really was talking about when she referred to faggot. But I guess McCarthy was a man because he lied about his military service (gee...that sounds oddly familiar).

The biggest laugher is the lengths that this absurd site will go to to defend someone of Coulter's caliber by displacing the blame to someone like Greenwald. Oh, and I love the one about the war going swimmingly. As funny as Lindsay Graham's comment about EVERYONE in the World believing there were WMD. Ethnocentrism is great at turning "we" into "everyone".

Posted by: Miguel at March 5, 2007 04:03 PM

You must have some interesting blogs linking in today, Cass.

Posted by: Grim at March 5, 2007 04:07 PM

Miguel, as always your reading comprehension is subpar.

I am not even going to waste time on someone who can't figure out the point of a post that flat out says two people are the same. You're an idiot.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2007 04:24 PM

Brian-

By the way, marriage has not always been about love. That may be how you feel about it, or even dead poets, but originally it was about property. And for most of humanity, it was dual property/protection, which is what men provided for women. The aspect of wealth was part of the property issue. Why else would most under aged (by today's standart) women of the past be betrothed to older men? YOur notions about marriage are sweet, quaint and honorable, but incorrect.

As for homosexual relationships being dead-ends, if the most important aspect of marriage is about propagation, doesn't this biological, realist position fly in the face of your Christian perception of love? Although W.E.B Dubois said, "Contradiction is the hallmark of a brilliant mind". Dubois was once a Communist and later Conservative. Homosexuality, although you may not be able to fathom it, has been around since the dawn of civilization. Like heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships are built on love and companionship. Since most marriages strike out more than 50% of the time, I'd say anyone wishing to engage in a loving relationship, regardless of the sexual orientation, has that privilege. But you could also call it a right. Two consenting adults (for now heterosexual) can go to any city in America and get married. It is law, and by virtue of the fact that ANYONE can do it would deem it a right. Wax poetic about "privilege" but it remains a right of heterosexuals.

Posted by: Miguel at March 5, 2007 04:26 PM

Thanks Sandy,

I'll take that as a compliment. If it is being stated that the two are the same, it sure takes a long time to rip Greenwald a new one to lastly say, "See, he's just like her." Quite the third grade response. Which is the method you employ on every topic...moral equivalence to apologize for a shrew like Ann. Couldn't you just say, she is a dip**it without having to through in your token liberal voice. Yeah, ha ha, I get the match made in heaven silliness (as Greg Kinnear, as the nextdoor neighbor "Faggot" to Jack Nicholson in 'As Good As It Gets' states, 'The point you are making is not an entirely subtle one'). But apparently irony misses you entirely and often. Isn't it funny that Ann would, of all words, chose that one to label Edwards with....her the McCarthy champion, the perennial single Fag Hag of Matt Drudge, the lonesome skeletor bandying about Washington in dresses that almost fall of her concentration camp frame. I'd venture that Ann may be gay but can't come out of the closet. So, I spelled my irony out for you. One idiot to another.

Posted by: Miguel at March 5, 2007 04:33 PM

By the way, thanks for remembering me. It warms my heart to know that I had an impact on your dark soul.

Posted by: Miguel at March 5, 2007 04:36 PM

Miggie,
The point of the long post is that ole' Greenie, despite being the same as Coulter, thinks himself to be superior to her.

Coulter's idiocy is well stipulated by many conservatives. So little evidence is needed. Greenwald, however, claims to be above such low-brow antics and so evidence is presented to refute such claim.

Posted by: Masked Menace at March 5, 2007 04:51 PM

Thanks for the breakdown. It was so difficult for me to discern the bloggers intent. Could you send me a copy of the cliff notes? Wow, how did these bloggers get so clever.

MM.....I get it. But again, and you being named as one who hides behind something (MM)should see the straw man logic here. IF this is the case, then why even write a blog about Coulter's comments. If you really feel they are reprehensible, why comment? I'll tell you why, oh grand pubah. Because the tactic is to always create a moral equivalence. I feel that Sandy girl is intellectually dishonest. If she wants to say I like Ann Coulter, but I don't agree with her crap, but she has the right to say it, and the left does similar crap, enough said. And I will defend her right to be as much of an idiot as she wants. But I haven't heard Greenwald use terms and names like Ann. And the examples you parade out don't seem to have the same bite as Skeletor Coulter. Besides, Greenie is far from the same as Coulter. He likes a nice big ham sandwich with fries. He won't purge it later.

Posted by: MIguel at March 5, 2007 05:13 PM

And he probably is smarter than here. He actually writes for a e-zine which hires WRITERS. And he doesn't resort to epithets to criticize someone. Calling Cheney evil isn't bad, or wrong. It is truthful.

Posted by: Miguel at March 5, 2007 05:20 PM

*sigh* In the first few sentences of the post:

"they're two peas in a pod"

And ole swiftie Miguel with his rapier wit says

"...it sure takes a long time to rip Greenwald a new one to lastly say, "See, he's just like her.""

[drum roll]

Please ignore him. Maybe he'll go away.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 5, 2007 05:27 PM

Why write a blog about it?

Are you serious?

Coulter: [insert stupid comment of the day]

Greenwald: Thank you Lord, that I'm not like that rancid hate-monger, right-wing warrior, bigoted deceitful idiot, wretched bloodthirsty authoritarian, with twisted psychological impulses bitch like Ann Coulter.

Yeah, you're right. Nothing worthy of comment.

Toodles.

Posted by: Masked Menace at March 5, 2007 05:41 PM

Yeah, that equates with "faggot" anyday of the week. And once again, moral equivalence works as the ammo to distance one from Ann Coulter, and liberals. "See, liberals are just as bad." Finger pointed with severe extension and incredulous expression with mouth agape. How's that War going Sandy? Sounds from all national and international reporting that is just going dandy. And I know you fully support our troops, that's why will never utter and truth to why we began this conflagration. Much they way it is required to make Ann Coulter out to be a harpy, like Greenwald. Only the committed and the choir need apply at this ostensible blog. For it is pushing for freedom. Did you hear the new name for the War pushed out by the Pentagon? Operation Iraqi Liberation. No lie. So what is the acronym? O.I.L. I kid you not. Look it up Dandy Sandy. They changed it after they checked it out.

Posted by: Miguel at March 5, 2007 08:07 PM

Well how sweet, thank you Miguel.

You come in and act like an ass and make us both look good in a moral equivalence type way.

Bless you.

Posted by: Ann & Glenn at March 5, 2007 09:16 PM

Miguel's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?

Interesting how he takes my post, infers that I believe that marriage is about love, have some quaint Christian view of the institution, and am inconsistent in my thinking.

News flash, genius: I'm not a Christian (GASP! A Conservative that's not a Christian?). I believe that the divorce rate skyrocketing occurred roughly at the same time as "love" became the sole component of marriage, and just because anyone can do it it isn't a right.

That pop in your head? That's the sound of a paradigm shifting without a clutch. Try reading comprehension. It works.

Posted by: brian at March 5, 2007 09:33 PM

Miguel,
I think Ann Coulter is an intelligent woman. I also think she isn't going to get away with it this time. So cut her some slack and let her
learn her lesson. I get tired of being called a racist homophobic anti Semite gay bashing conservative. I don't have to jump through hoops to prove anything, but the left screeches to the point of everyone being deafened.

Ann Coulter did not commit a crime. What she did was tell a joke that flopped and for a good reason. It was in poor taste.

Posted by: Cricket at March 5, 2007 09:50 PM

Damn, Good one guy's!

Now "Can't we all just get along?"

Posted by: unkawill at March 5, 2007 11:24 PM

Who the hell is this "Sandy" to whom Miguel keeps referring?
Or is this yet another indication of his subpar reading skills?

I can't believe you all entertained Grendel72's Army of Strawmen for so long. You're FAR more patient than I am. ;-)

Posted by: Beth at March 6, 2007 04:23 AM

Well, there was a difference with Grendel though. He was actually making some serious points, and when I asked him to tone it down he did and there was a little serious exchange of ideas. I think that's a good thing. I want this to be more than just a bunch of us just sitting around agreeing with each other (not that we always agree with each other!, but obviously some viewpoints will be more divergent than others).

I am fairly reluctant to cut off conversation. It's not uncommon when people surf in from other sites for things to be a bit adversarial at first. But they usually settle down once people realize that we are willing to listen. I know I'm a bit of a Pollyanna, but I want to see more talking between the right and left and less flamethrowing.

It's not easy to do because both sides feel so strongly about things, but I think it's important.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 6, 2007 05:42 AM

Geesh.

Ok, Grendel72, Loving v. Virginia had two holdings.

1) Under the 14th Amendment, which was passed to end RACIAL discrimintation, a marriage law cannot have any classifications or limitation based on race. (At that time, racial discrimination was about the only discrimination given strict scrutiny -- and it cannot be denied that race was the purpose and probably sole meaning of the amendment as passed during reconstruction. Strict scrutiny has only been given to racial classification and others very similar to race, such as nationality.) There is no SupCt opinion giving "sexual preference" or "sexual orientation" or whatever the proper phrase is now any scrutiny other than "rational basis." Even Texas v. Lawrence failed to identify the level of scrutiny given to the sodomy law of Texas. And I agreed with the outcome of that case, though I could have done it with much better constitutional reasoning than Kennedy felt obligated to use.

2) As an alternative holding, the Court held that marriage, as a general basic right, could not be limited based on racial grounds. Now, Grendel, here is the point that needs to be said and that you conveniently ignore: "Marriage" is a word. It has a specific meaning, particularly in the western world. It means, and HAS ALWAYS MEANT, a special type of familial, contractual relationship between a man and a woman.

Even in bigamist cultures, where a man (or a woman) may have more than one spouse, the "marriage" contract is between one man and one woman. The women aren't married to each other. They don't go through the ceremony together. Bigamy simply allows a spouse to enter into multiple, simultaneous marriage contracts.

If you were to ask the 9 justices in Loving v. Va. what they meant by "marriage" they would tell you just that -- a marriage is an arrangement between a man and a woman. Not a person and person.

You are ignoring the definitions of words because your movement has already hijacked the word marriage and changed its meaning to "person and person." That is fine for your political posturing I suppose. But the Court's opinion doesn't support your position because your meaning of the word marriage was not the meaning of that word (in any place on Earth) in 1967 when the Court's decision was passed down or when any part of the constitution was passed.

So, as I see it, you need to win this battle, if you are going to, and you will one day, in the legislature.

Most of us aren't biggots.

While you are at it, get a better lawyer. Yours is scaring you for no reason.

Posted by: KJ at March 6, 2007 03:16 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)