I’m still having trouble parsing this fragment:
which doesn’t make any sense. I guess she’s saying that “liberals” think that everyone would love to engage in a little homosexual conduct, or maybe she’s just saying that these priests must obviously be homosexual if they molested boys. That doesn’t get her anywhere, though, because the real issue isn’t just the molestations, but the coverups. I think I’m just going to have a beer and not read any more of her articles.
(a quick Google later)
Hey! She IS cute! And naked!
[hijacking in another direction entirely]
When I hear people tsk-tsking women who date “bad boys” when they know those guys are bad for them and say GUYS don’t do that sort of thing I think of how many guys would date Mussolini’s granddaughter. Or would have screwed Il Duce himself if he looked like that. Quoting my high school chums, “You don’t fuck the personality.”
[returning the thread to being about Ann Coulter]
Bummer! Google can’t find any nude photos of Ann Coulter.
I’m not much familiar with Annie Poison Oakley from any time previous, up to the point where she started to say really seriously deranged things. When I feel the need for some maudlin right wing drivia I consult Peggy Nooner. So I dont have a history to relate on this, but it occurs to me: all kidding aside, might we not be witnessing an actual schiz-out meltdown, John Nash style? Has she always been loony-tunes, but just not this wierd?
As to chaining Mike Moore to her, surely there is nothing he has done to warrant such. Keep in mind that he created Candadian Bacon, alerting us to the Great Grey Threat looming to the North.
To continue the hijack. . .
fascist babes? How about Laura Ingraham ?
DNFTT (Do Not Feed The Troll) won’t work here for one big reason: It lets her arguments go unchallenged in a forum where people might actually believe them. By pointing them out here, we can use this place as a cite, a reference source, in case an ignorant person shows up actually accepting Ann Claptrap’s BS.
Noop, not ignorant here. Annie is dead spot on, as usual, and while she is a bit on the caustic side (who wouldn’t be, with so much crap that passes for intelligent discourse amongst the latte left these days) The more the libbies squeel about this, it just reinforces the fact she’s hit a nerve. The jab about “where’s waldo” was esp. illustrative of the mental gymnastics and bias in modern editorial parlance. The article was hilarious; I’m convinced that the hard core left has absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever.
She could stand to eat a bit more though, she’s a twig.
**Tedster **: So, you think the Catholic Church did the right thing in covering up for priests who molested and allowing them to continue to serve in capacities that brought them near young children? Guess there isn’t an argument in the world you can’t find someone willing to support.
Polycarp
What are you talking about?!? She never says anything resembling that.
John Corrado
I find that extremely unfair. Conservatives are constantly being accused of “generalizing”, and so these sort of disclaimers are necessary. If it seems flippant, perhaps it’s out of annoyance that it is necessary.
No, she’s saying that since liberals are loath to admit that homosexuality causes sodomy, if there were a case of sodomy during a camping trip, liberals would say that it’s the camping that caused the sodomy. Given her axioms, it makes sense. Of course, her axioms don’t make sense.
Whack-a-Mole
I take it you mean “altar girls”?
Spiritus Mundi
I think it’s blazingly obvious why she didn’t include it; it seems obvious to her. Why are you so quick to ascribe sinister motives when there’s an obvious explanation that you completely ignore? BTW, she did allude to this later (see my response to MM).
Mighty Maximino
What’s so confusing about it? She’s saying that liberals claim that homosexual conduct is not correlated with homosexuality. Notice how SM made a big deal out of her not explicitly stating her belief that male molesters of males are homosexual. SM is implying that they aren’t homosexual. Now, this is clearly homosexual conduct, so SM is implying that homosexual conduct is not correlated with homosexuality. Which is exactly what Coulter claims is the position of liberals. Strange how this thread is actually evidence for some of her claims.
Miller
So you do think that the priests are innocent of all wrongdoing? :rolleyes:
[In case the :rolleyes: was too subtle for you, that was sarcasm.]
…but with articles like this one, her cuteness gets old fast.
eehhh, If your Heterosexual, and like to have anal sex, does that make you homosexual?
My high school friends had a solution for this one, too. “I wouldn’t be able to hear her with my dick in her mouth.”
I had just the CLASSIEST friends!
Just like to log my general annoyance that every time a Ann Coulter thread comes up, people mention how pretty she is.
Nobody ever says how cute David Duke is, because its stupid. Why it always gets brought up with her I don’t understand.
Because the “obvious” motive you point to does not ring true. She quite obviously understands that other people disagree with her position; that is the whole point of her diatribe. Yet rather than plainly stating the position upon which her argument is based she carefully mischaracterizes it with the allusion you mention. “Since liberals categorically reject the notion that homosexual conduct is often correlated with homosexuality”.
This, of course, misdirects teh reader into imagining that her position is based upon some standard of “often correlated” rather than the axiomatic ‘same sex sexual acivity ==> homosexuality’. Her axiom makes sense in a dictionary, but little sense as a description of the complex field of human sexuality. It is an accurate adjective to describe the act, but not an accurate adjective to describe the perpetrator. People concerned with precision and clarity understand that distinction. People familiar with current research into sexual orientation understand the fallacy of using the term to describe the sexual orientation of the molester. The proper clinical descriptions are usually pedophile or hebephile, though some molestations are committed by people who do not exhibit ongoing patterns of child/teen sexual atraction.
People concerned with advancing an inflamatory agenda regardless of accuracy forgo such nuances and apply emotionally laden terms broadly and often inaccurately. As Ms. Coulter is a proffessional columnist of some experience I judge it more likely that her obfuscations and usage are deliberate than coincidental oversights.
I am not quick to ascribe sinister motives, but I am quite willing to call a spade a shovel full of shit.
Well, I think that SM is claiming that molestation is not correlated to homosexuality. No doubt we’re going to have to rehash all those statistical-analysis threads to try and prove/disprove that statement? The ones I’ve seen have come down on the “non-correlated” side, but I don’t really feel like reinventing the wheel again.
Because it’s a fun and traditional non sequiter. Not a hijack, as one cannot really derail an anti-Coulter thread. It is also dismissive and disrespectful in what is seen as a traditionally conservative manner (“Gee, that Gloria Steinem would look a lot better without those glasses.”) so is ironic when used to be dismissive of a conservative columnist.
David Duke is not my type. I’ll try it next time one comes up or I’ll ask Esprix to do it, if you’d rather.
OK, I may live on the far edge of hip civilization, but before this thread and one previous one I had never heard of this person. Glancing through the stuff on the linked web sight I don’t seen anything I wouldn’t expect to hear for a somewhat intoxicated, ignorant and opinionated pig farmer on a cold and wet night at some disreputable road house. Who is this person and, other than the general outrageousness of her comments, why should I care what she thinks.
As far as her photo goes, she looks like one of those women who was an all-conference basketball player in high school, now plays handball four times a week and is devoting most of her efforts in trying to act just a tough as the Gov. of Minnesota. This is not the person I would chose to spend a social evening with.
Yep, she’s a twig, and I don’t think she’s cute at all. That not being the point, let’s go on…
“Where’s Waldo” in the New York Times? Really? What editions of the New York Times is she reading? I decided to investigate these stories in the New York Times, just to check if they were really avoiding mentioning the sex of the boys, as Ms. Coulter alleges.
Hmm…let’s check May 10, 2002. HEADLINE: “Two priests who abused boys in Maine are removed.”
The May 17, 2002, edition uses the phrase “preying on young boys,” and doesn’t seem to dodge the issue at all.
If this is “Where’s Waldo?” for Ann Coulter, she could entertain herself for days playing “Where’s Lincoln?” with pennies.
I don’t seem to recall the “liberal” media purposely avoiding pointing out that a good portion of the victims were boys, do you?
The hard-core left has no humor about this? Well, fine. I just don’t find it terribly funny, especially being based on false presumptions. (And I even find Limbaugh an entertaining listen from time to time, despite being a “Libbie.”)
More on Coulter in a sec, as I process all the info…
Why did you make me read that? 
The woman obviously knows jack shit about homosexuals (who have been known to engage in loving, consensual relationships) and child molestation (which is non-consensual rape, in which the gender of the victim is a non-issue). It’s a pity, however, that people will read her and believe her.
{sigh}
Esprix
Spavine Gelding - for your further “enlightenment”, I point you to Front Page Magazine’s biography on her: http://www.frontpagemag.com/horowitzsnotepad/2001/hn10-03-01.htm
My favorite line is the supposed example of cough PC McCarthyism exericed by her employers when she was dismissed from the National Review Online for this gentle and innocuous statement:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
If the term McCarthyism is used to characterize the agenda against Coulter, then obviously someone is missing a bit of irony here.
Dismissing Coulter’s Sept. 12 comments as being tongue-in-cheek is, at best, shaky. Nowhere in the article does she indicate that she’s engaging in some sort of Swiftian satire.
As for further comments about this article, I’ve really lost her thread, and I have no idea what the hell she’s talking about.
“Liberals are hawking the idea that gay priests could have been cured by marriage?”
'Scuse me? Who? What liberals? I know this plays into her assertion that “liberals” are blaming the Catholic Church’s policy on celibacy for somehow encouraging pedophilia/homosexuality (the tone of her article really doesn’t seem to make too fine a point on the distinction.) What "liberals"are claiming this? I can certainly tell you of several conservatives in my family who claim that if priest could marry, there’d be a downturn in molestations. And I’m sure I can find liberals who support this idea. So? I don’t think the liberal/conservative dichotomy could be applied AT ALL to this situation. If anything, I’d reckon you’d find more conservative Protestants recommending a "repeal"of celibacy laws than liberal Catholics.
I just don’t understand how she makes this leap of logic. Honestly. If someone can explain, please do.
Tedster & The Ryan, let me try to explain why Ms. Coulter’s hypothesis is incorrect.
In Ms. Coulter’s mind, only men are child molesters and, further, they only molest young boys. Therefore, child molesters are gay men and gay men are, in turn, child molesters. Remove gay men from society and you solve the problem of child molestation.
What she doesn’t take into account are the following facts:
[ul][li]"Girls [are] sexually abused about three times more often than boys, under both the Harm Standard and the Endangerment Standard." And since more men than women (89% vs 12%) sexually abuse children, it is therefore logical to conclude that heterosexual men sexually abuse children in far greater numbers than homosexual men.[/li][li]Even though there are more men than women who sexually abuse children, the number of women who do so is not insignificant and is growing.[/li][li]Adult homosexuals of either sex are attracted to adult members of their same sex.[/li]Pedophiles are adults of either sex and of varying sexual orientations who are sexually attracted to children. [/ul] As much as I hate to admit it, it’s easy for me to see how people can look at the publicity surounding male priests and young boys and think homosexuality must play a part in the molestation. What’s terribly sad and frightening is that people like Ms. Coulter, who are in a sitions to educate the public, choose instead to feed upon those misconceptions and instill fear and hatred in people with misinformation that is unsupported by any evidence, or even logic, for that matter.