Sep 5, 2007

Coulter Quote of the Week: dedicated to rightwing bloggers and Xavier University students

This week’s two Minutes of Hate, otherwise known as the Coulter Quote of the Week, is dedicated to two people this week.

The first is dedicated to the folks over at “” They attacked Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, because Ken Brock, his Chief-of-staff, was paraphrased in an opinion column by a reporter as calling one of Schauer’s potential opponents in the Democratic nomination for the 7th Congressional District seat a "liberal, Jewish trial lawyer.” What he was doing was talking about how hard it would be for David Nacht to win the nomination in a conservative district that has been held by Republicans for years. The same day Brock apologized for the remark, and Mr. Nacht accepted the apology and understood the context the unfortunate word, “Jewish,” was used. However, it took four days for the good folks over at wrongmichingan to post the apology.

The second dedication goes out to the students at Xavier University in Cincinnati who raised more than $25,000 in a “Counter Coulter” campaign – the speaking fee Ann Coulter was charging the Xavier University College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation to speak for them – to donate to tolerant student groups at a counter event held the same day Coulter is speaking. Great job.

Here in Livingston County, in less than three weeks the queen of hate will be at Cleary University’s Economic Club Speakers Luncheon Series speaking for Cleary University, speaking for the Livingston County Republican and further reinforcing the false notion that Livingston County welcomes racists of all ilks. She will collect her $30,000 for 90 minutes of hate, and she will be gone.

Here are this week’s quotes of the week:

“Moreover, a question on reparations has got to be confusing when you're half-white and half-black. What do you do? Demand an apology for slavery and money from yourself? I guess biracial reparations would involve sending yourself money, then sending back a portion of that money to yourself, minus 50 percent in processing fees — which is the same way federal aid works.” --- Online column 8/1/07

“Democrats are counting on illegal immigrants to be the future of their party, their border guards for the new socialist state. At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they're fighting for. Their plan is to destroy America.” --- Online column 8/22/07


First Lord of the Admiralty said...

--- Even a broken clock is right twice a day ---


I respect your opinion. The politics of personal destruction is alive and well on the right flank. But this time (gulp), they're right.

1) It's a bald-faced lie for Brock to say that Nacht's religion would have been to his detriment in a Democratic primary or the general election. The only way it could be was if someone made it an issue. Ken Brock made it an issue. (He was "on the record" with a reporter.)

2) I don't care that Nacht isn't offended. He doesn't speak for me. I'm offended because that kind of talk doesn't belong in politics or anywhere else.

Communications guru said...

I disagree.

1) While I don’t think Mr. Nacht's religion would have been a detriment to him in the primary, I’m not so sure it would not in the general election. It matters in the least to me, and I really don’t care what religion he is. But, again, I think maybe it may hurt him in the general election in such a conservative district. Now, you may disagree, and I may be 100 percent wrong. But the point is there is a difference of opinion there, and all Mr. Brock was doing was expressing his opinion and giving his take and analysis on the race and the candidates. He in no way is saying being Jewish is being bad. It would be like calling a pollster racist for expressing an opinion that Sen. Barack Obama might not win an all-white county in southern Mississippi.

liberalshateusa said...

Ann quote of the week.

by Ann Coulter
September 5, 2007

If you've just returned from your Labor Day vacation and are scanning the headlines from last week's newspapers -- don't panic! America is not threatened by a category 5 hurricane named "Larry Craig."

Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."

Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" program on Aug. 28 by saying Larry Craig had been "exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite."

Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican.

As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV show with actual viewers.

The New York Times ran 15 articles on Craig's guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" in a bathroom. The Washington Post ran 20 articles on Craig. MSNBC covered it like it was the first moon landing -- Three small taps for a man, one giant leap for public gay sex!

In other news last week, two Egyptian engineering students, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, were indicted in Tampa on charges of carrying pipe bombs across states lines. They were caught with the bombs in their car near a Navy base.

But back to the real news of the week: CNN's Dana Bash reported that the Larry Craig story was "everywhere and it is not going to let up."

If liberals were any happier, they'd be gay.

Just as liberals were reaching a fever-pitch of pretend shock and dismay at Larry Craig, it was announced that Craig was resigning. And there went MSNBC's fall program schedule.

Indignant that Craig had short-circuited their gleeful gay-baiting, liberals quickly switched to a new set of talking points. In the blink of an eye, they went from calling Craig a "deviant" to attacking Republicans for not insisting that Craig stay.

Liberals said the only reason Republicans were not blanketing the airwaves defending Craig -- maybe running him for president -- was because of Republican "homophobia." After howling with rage all week about gay Republicans, to turn around and call Republicans homophobes on Friday was nothing if not audacious.

But last Friday -- or, for short, "the day the two bomb-carrying Egyptian students were indicted and the mainstream media was too busy jeering at Larry Craig to notice" -- The New York Times editorialized:

"Underlying the (Republicans') hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Sen. Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness."

Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk!

Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."

And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.

Liberals have no idea what they think about homosexuality, which is why their arguments are completely contradictory. They gay-bait Republicans with abandon -- and then turn around and complain about homophobia.

They call Larry Craig a "deviant" based on accusations that he attempted to solicit sex in a public bathroom -– and then ferociously attack efforts to prevent people from having sex in public bathrooms.

They say people are born gay -- and then they say it's the celibacy requirement that turns Catholic priests gay.

They tell us gays want nothing more than to get married -- and then say it's homophobic to oppose homosexual sex in public bathrooms.

Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.

The Idaho Statesman spent eight months investigating a rumor that Craig was gay. They interviewed 300 people, going back to his college days. They walked around Union Station in Washington, D.C., with a picture of Craig, asking people if they had seen him loitering around the men's bathrooms.

And they produced nothing.

All they had was the original anonymous charge of sodomy in a bathroom at Union Station that started the eight-month investigation in the first place -- and his plea to "disorderly conduct" after an ambiguous encounter in a bathroom in Minneapolis. Even his enemies said they had never seen any inappropriate conduct by Craig.

If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that, according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among the least hypocritical people in America.

Communications guru said...

This is your last warning, hate the USA. If you have something to say, say it. You can even use a few paragraphs and sentences of other people’s words to illustrate your point, even those from your goddess Ann Coulter. But you will not post an entire article again, or I will delete it.

Coulter, again, is wrong. It’s about the hypocrisy of a guy who votes against every measure to give gays equal rights who is gay himself and tries to hide it. It s about the hypocrisy of a man who says he is trying to protect marriage but is unfaithful to that marriage. See, hate the USDA, I believe in marriage, Larry Craig does not.
What Larry Craig does in his own bedroom is his own business, but when he takes that into a public restroom, then I have a problem with it.

liberalshateusa said...

So much for you not editing your posts as you ridicule Dan of doing. You have stated that all posts will be accepted. You are a bigot and a hypocrite. If you are going to keep writing about your obsession with Ann Coulter and your one man crusade to try to stop the 1st amendment other persons should be able to see what “The Queen Of Hate” writes so the can decide for themselves.

Communications guru said...

Wow, you can write your own words, hate the USA. The difference between me and dan is I allow everyone to post - including anonymously, which he does not. However, you have been warned. You can spew all of the hate from the GOP mouthpiece you want here, but not the entire column with nothing else. If you want to do that start your own blog. If you want to use entire paragraphs of her bile and comment on it, that’s fine. You can provide a link to it so people can read the trash themselves. That’s legal and accepted use, but I don’t think what your doing is even legal.

How am I am a bigot and a hypocrite? Because I don’t agree with you? The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with it. I’m not the government, I have no problem if she comes and speaks for free and the 1st Amendment does not protect every kind of speech, such as racist hate speech.