| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ann Coulter - true to form | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 10:53 AM (3,216 Views) | |
| Dave Spelvin | Jun 13 2006, 11:52 AM Post #201 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Through an admittedly brief Google search, I can't find evidence of anyone outing Mary Cheney. Can you provide a cite? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Jun 13 2006, 12:08 PM Post #202 |
|
Senior Carp
|
She was working for Coors as the gay/lesbian corporate PR liaison until May 2000. It's hard to be in the closet when your job is public relations on gay/lesbian community issues, I'd imagine. She held the job for at least two years. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 13 2006, 12:18 PM Post #203 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Then how about Gannon? Or Mehlman? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jun 13 2006, 01:33 PM Post #204 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I've crawled over better looking for a place to pull my wank. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 13 2006, 02:39 PM Post #205 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
In other words, after saying "MARY CHENEY! MARY CHENEY!" a few times, and after being proven totally wrong, you don't even admit that you were wrong, and you just move on to other names? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Jun 13 2006, 04:16 PM Post #206 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Um, Ken Mehlman isn't gay. And Jeff Gannon? You can't be serious! A paid "reporter" who was given a series of press passes for the specific purpose of lobbing softball questions to the President at press conferences? The one who lied about his resume? Who isn't even named "Jeff Gannon", but actually James Guckert? Who, during the course of investigating his lies and lack of credentials, was discovered to have visited many gay dating websites? That Jeff Gannon? What did you want the press to do? Not report that as part of an ongoing pattern of lies and deceit? The fact that he was gay wasn't even the political issue. It was how he was able to get significant access and press passes with virtually no oversight whatsoever. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 13 2006, 06:23 PM Post #207 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
I'm still not ready to throw in the towel on that one....I remember the 2000 campaign, and I remember the hubbub over the introduction of Cheney's daughter into the race. At what point was she working for the gay organization in 2000? Pre or post campaign? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 13 2006, 06:24 PM Post #208 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Jun 13 2006, 06:51 PM Post #209 |
|
Senior Carp
|
No, thanks. I'm still trying to find a gay person that was outed by the Democrats. Don't change the topic. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jun 14 2006, 03:30 AM Post #210 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Nine pages.. y'know, I guess Ann's not so dumb after all, eh? Gets the dialogue going, and that's a good thing. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 14 2006, 04:03 AM Post #211 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Perhaps you didn't notice this post by Nina:
That would have been pre-campaign. You can quibble if you like about how the campaign starts two years earlier, but it didn't for Cheney (as the public face of the campaign, anyway) ... he wasn't nominated as Veep until August 2000, and therefore wasn't a figure that anyone focused on earlier in the early parts of 2000. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 14 2006, 04:15 AM Post #212 |
|
MAMIL
|
[Noise of wind blowing tumbleweed across desert]
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Jun 14 2006, 04:57 AM Post #213 |
|
one of the angels
|
there was a guy in Texas who swindled Hurricane Katrina funds to fund a sex change operation - heard that on NPR just an aside (the way Mary Cheney was treated is despicable.. i do applaud's Dick public handling of that on the podium no less) |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jun 14 2006, 06:35 AM Post #214 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
The reason some haven't bothered to respond to it is probably the same as my reason for it. Those attempting to trash Coulter have taken the discussion into so many rabbit trails you'd have to write a book to respond to them all. But I'll try... First, not all of you who suffer from the mental illness of modern liberalism are closed minded idiots. The problem however, is that some of you are, and when one of the idiots among you take off on a tangent, you tend to ignore their stupidity and take advantage of the smoke screen they've laid down. For example, after nine pages of liberals attempting to justify their positions, you have, as a group, managed to eliminate all worthwhile debate by bouncing from one diversion to the other until you've changed the subject from what it started out to be into a referendum of one point - a point taken out of context, all hinging on the use of one word - "outed". Now, because you've derailed the discussion to the point that you have, before anyone can get back to the subject, we must write a book to get around your little "point". Coulter has now been "proven" to be a liar in your opinion, and one must unravel your twisted "point" before we can get back on topic. So let's unravel it. Yes, Coulter used the word "outed". But you're playing a game of semantics in order to avoid dealing with the reality of the facts in the case. No, no one "outed" these people in the traditional sense that you are trying to force into the discussion - that no one knew they were gay until they were "outed" by a particular democrat. That wasn't the context in which Coulter accused anyone of "outing" them. Yes, people who knew of Dick Cheney's daughter knew she was gay. But the public at large didn't know it, because she wasn't a national figure. Coulter wasn't saying that Cheney's daughter was "in the closet" until Kerry "outed" her, she was saying that Kerry chose a national presidential debate to bring it up in the most tactless and gratuitous manner, for the express purpose of "outing" her to a national audience, for the single hope that by doing this he could smear his opponent. Had it been Kerry's daughter that was gay, living a private life outof the national spotlight, and had Bush or Cheney done the same tacky stunt, the democrats would *still* be screaming about it. So - did Coulter lie when she said these people were "outed"? No. She was pointing out the obvious, and anyone being honest has to admit that what Kerry did for example, was a cheap shot. A low blow. So now we have to deal with the game of semantics over the use of the word "outed" as you liberals flounder around trying to turn it into some sort of "proof" that Coulter lied, when in reality all you're doing is playing typical diversionary games like you always do when you don't want to discuss the *real* issue - which is: Modern liberalism is a Godless religion. The Jersey Girls are politically motivated activists. Coulter ruffled the feathers of liberals all over the nation when she pointed it out. And unfortunately for those of you who hate her guts, one can use the same argument *you've* tried to use in trying to "prove" she is a liar because she used the word "outed" - just like Cheney's daughter was already known to be gay before Kerry mentioned it, the Jersey Girls had already been "outed" as political opportunists who used their husbands' deaths as a platform for pushing their liberal views and agenda, long before Coulter said it, and by more than one journalist. I realize this won't satisfy the more mentally challenged liberals among you. But nothing would satisfy them except full surrender to their warped belief system, their religion, the religion of liberalism. Maybe the few among you who can still use your brain and are still capable of taking an honest look at the facts and think for yourself however, will see my point. Coulter has *still* not been shown to be a liar. Her point, though the use of the word "outed" could and has been defined in multiple ways, was true and factual. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 14 2006, 06:51 AM Post #215 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I seem to remember conservatives pulling their hair out when someone we all know tried to use different meanings of the word "is". The normal and accepted use of the word "outed" isn't good enough for Ann, huh? Maybe she should say it depends on what "was" means, too. And, as for whether what Kerry did was wrong or not, it depends on Mary Cheney. If she wasn't bothered by it, then it wasn't wrong. If she didn't want the entire nation to know her sexual orientation ... then yes, it was wrong. Personally, I don't recall ever seeing her comment on it one way or the other, but I'm sure she had views about it. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jun 14 2006, 06:56 AM Post #216 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
That is not the standard to use in deciding if it was right or wrong. Did Kerry do it with the intent to smear his opponent, or was it an innocent remark with no agenda behind it - *that* is the standard by which you can decide if it was right or wrong, and we all know that Kerry did it for politically motivated purposes. Cheney's daughter dismissing it as not bothering her is beside the point. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Jun 14 2006, 07:08 AM Post #217 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Tumbleweeds notwithstanding, this is what I find most interesting about the whole discussion. During the 2004 campaign, it was pointed out that Dick Cheney's own daughter is a homosexual, a fact that neither she nor her family had hidden or denied, and that, to Cheney's and his family's credit, she was not treated as different or evil or in any way other than as a beloved daughter. The Democratic candidates were agreeing with Mr. Cheney's personal handing of Mary's homosexuality while pointing out the dissonance between this and his party's positions on the subject. I would say that the despicable treatment is what the Republicans as a party want to do to Mary Cheney and our Constitution, contrary to the natures of both. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jun 14 2006, 07:12 AM Post #218 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I agree with you that the attempt to change the Constitution was ridiculous. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 14 2006, 07:21 AM Post #219 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
No, Larry, you've missed the point. You said ... and I agree ... that disclosing her sexual identity before a national audience was wrong, because she hadn't done that herself. But if she didn't mind, then it isn't a problem. Of course, it would be nice if Kerry somehow knew ahead of time that she wouldn't mind, but we don't know that either. Just as a pure hypothetical, if Kerry's people had called her ahead of time, and asked her permission, then it wouldn't be wrong, would it? So, how Mary Cheney feels about it is PRECISELY the point. You can't "out" someone, no matter how you define it, if the thing that you are "outing" isn't an issue that they want to keep undisclosed. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jun 14 2006, 07:24 AM Post #220 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
If you do it in an attempt to smear your opponent, you have used the woman. It doesn't matter whether or not she objected to being "outed", because being "outed" isn't the point. Using her homosexuality for political purposes, in the hopes of doing damage the way Kerry used her, is the point. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










10:39 PM Jul 12