John Aravosis is on his high horse demanding that Cheney, of all people, condemn Ann Coulter for calling John Edwards a “faggot“ today. Aravosis is one of the most bitter people in in the blogosphere.  If one doesn’t like him, they must be homophobic. Nevermind that he is an hypocritical, frustrated, loathing individual.  Let me remind you of some things that Aravosis has said in the past, that have yet to be apologised for:
Oh, man, is this gonna be fun. Just watching the religious right try to bite their tongues and not slam the vice president’s family. I’m very happy for Mary and Heather, and in their own way they’re breaking new ground and making a difference for gay people in this country, finally. But still, this is gonna be priceless just to watch the collective heads of the religious right explode.
Then people got irate that I noted that Harris was rather nice in person. I went one step further and reported a conversation I had with another friend last night who knows Harris quite well. The friend, who is a good liberal, told me that I’d be surprised, on a personal level Harris is one of the nicest people my friend knows. I report that fact, and big surprise, all hell breaks loose. I am now, apparently, broadcasting that Katherine Harris is actually a wonderful human being. No, I said she’s nice in person and has a reputation, even among liberals, of being an incredibly nice person. That doesn’t mean I think she’s a wonderful human being, it simply means that whatever she is, it’s a lot more complicated than folks would like to present. (why would you take the time to justify what you said. Most mature adults can play a mean political game, but then turn around and be good friends with the opposition. It’s called maturity)
Read Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” then get back to me and see if you still miss the point.
Then I make the larger observation that the nastiest of Republicans can be some of the nicest people, and vice versa for Democrats. If you live in DC and actually meet “famous” political types, you’ll likely know what I mean.
Newt Gingrich, for example. I just appeared on O’Reilly, went back to the green room, and Newt starts telling me what an amazing job I did. Mind you, I was debating gay rights with O’Reilly, Newt knows this, and is still praising me. It was weird, trust me. But it was also fascinating that Newt would be that nice one-on-one.(Why would Newt be anything but pleasant? He is mature and has social graces)
Then there are the gun nuts. Joe can tell you stories about them. Awful people. But incredibly, shockingly nice on a personal level. And how about arch-bigot Jesse Helms, famed for being wonderful in person. Same goes for Pat Buchanan. Yes, they’re horrible people, but they’re FAMED for being wonderful people in person. That’s fascinating, it’s not something you’d expect, and I noted that fact. And of course, lots of folks freaked out again in the comments, this time saying I thought conservatives were good people and Democrats bad people.(So people that believe in their constitutional right to own a weapon are nuts? )
If I didn’t know any better, I would bet that John is Ann’s little brother.
Who cares what John Aravosis “thinks” of what Man Coulter said?
Let’s get you, Peejz, on record condeming her essentially calling John Edwards a faggot.
How about it?
This was totally uncalled for, Coulter needs to be banned from
ALL GOP events.
Period.
1-No SF, I won’t condemn her for it because they are her words and she has to live with them…Don’t hold your breath waiting for my outrage.
2- Banned? Why?
because she’s a fouled mouthed cunt, THAT’S WHY, YA ASSHOLE!
5- I’m guessing your foul mouth and name calling was meant to be funny? That is precisely why there is no reason to ban her. Keep in mind, you are the same accepting group of people that saw nothing wrong with the bloggers Edwards hired!:roll:
Wrong. I’m not a left winger, I am a populist. If you’d bothered to
read my blog, you’d know this. and Yes, I will say, what Edward’s
bloggers did was wrong as well. Let’s just stick to the issues and
quit with the slash and burn politics.
This is why she should either apologize to everyone, or be banned
:mad:
from ALL GOP related events.
-The Populist Moderate
7-A much better way to get your point across. I agree with your position: “Let’s just stick to the issues and quit with the slash and burn politics.”, but I guess that if it is only one side that is made to apologise, what good does it do? The standard that Ann is held to should be the same standard used across the political divide. It isn’t the right that keeps Ann in the news, it is the left. Ann is not employed by a political party, so therefore, why should any politician apologise for her….
“2- Banned? Why?”
Uhh…because she’s a BIGOT.
Bad for business, Peejz.
This woman is slowly killing her career.
So by all means, please keep it up Man Coulter!
I agree with San Francisco Liberal on this one. She’s shooting the
right in the foot. making them ALL like bad.
The one truism that can be stated is that liberals love to scream insults at conservatives and then demand apologies when they themselves are insulted. It can be seen very clearly even in this comment thread.
9+10- Slowly killing her career? What is her career? Who does she work for? Bad for who’s business?
If she’s making them(Republicans) all look bad, couldn’t the very same arguement be made about Aravosis?
P.S.- you do realize that you have just proved the point she was making…liberals love to scream foul and demand apologies, yet they never take a good look in the mirror. In the case of Edwards, he hired two bigots to run his blog. These gals made a sport of bashing people’s religion. They said vile hurtful things..Did Edwards apologise? Nope…and that was the basis for what was said…the right demanded he denounce them, and he didn’t. The words of those bloggers were no different than Ann’s.
Just finished reading Ann Coulter’s remarks on John Edwards,Not nice but she has the right to voice her opinion.This is not yet The Facist States of America.Close to it but nit yet.So why dont all of you get your PC,sp,heads out of your rectom?
So let me understand this… Ann slanders John Edwards, a married man and father of four, in front of some conservative’s liberal hatefest by implying he is a “faggot”. I guess I don’t understand why the audience seemed to enjoy the comment? I guess this is why there is a no ‘conversative’ version of the Daily Show… conservatives attempts to be funny always turn to being crude and cruel.
Meanwhile, did anyone mention this comment came from an never-married (or even seen dating) 45 year old woman with an adams-apple.
15-Ann slanders John Edwards, a married man and father of fourHow did John Edwards, the married man and father of four explain how he hired 2 bigoted thugs to work for his campaign? Do you think he did it on the way to church?
This hate piece on her seems to see things differently than you do
and btw, are you suggesting that because a woman is not married, they are therefore gay? What happened to the womens liberation movement..Gee, Gloria was 60 when she tied the knot!
16- “Ann slanders John Edwards, a married man and father of fourHow did John Edwards, the married man and father of four explain how he hired 2 bigoted thugs to work for his campaign? Do you think he did it on the way to church?”
Maybe. I dunno. I’ve saw nothing come from those bloggers which came close to the vile commentary Ann has unleashed over the years.
“and btw, are you suggesting that because a woman is not married, they are therefore gay? What happened to the womens liberation movement..Gee, Gloria was 60 when she tied the knot!”
Well, first you have to believe there is something wrong with being a ‘faggot’, which Ann obviously does since she likes she has a history of condemning them. Then you hav eto witness there is nothing to suggest John Edwards is gay given his family status and no reports by gay hookers of hotel room ‘massages’. Then you have to see her continuously failed ability to have a relationship with a man. Just saying, like Ted Haggard and others, the way some closeted homosexuals deal with their personal turmoil is to lash out at other homosexuals.
…
It’s worth noting that all three of the heavy-weight Republican contenders, McCain, Romney, and Giuliani, have publicly denounced Ann’s comment. You however, still seem to support her. Does that say how far out on the fringe you really are?
17- So I take it that you have never read the words of the bloggers.
No, I wouldn’t need to see something wrong with being a faggot in order to make the statement I did. And what is it that Ann has said about gays? Today she apologised to gays for comparing Edwards to them..
You really must be naive or simple to come to the conclusions you have..
Well, the liberals’ favorite resource Wikipedia defines a faggot as:
a. a perjorative for a gay or effeminate man
b. a bundle of sticks
Well he is rather effeminate….
Besides, I’ve heard conservatives called a lot worse. Hell, people who actually want the illegals to be returned to their home countries and not be allowed back into the US without a health and criminal background check, like every other immigrant group has had to go through, are called racists because they don’t think hispanics should get special treatment. I thought racists were those who thought one race should get preferential treatment because of their race, like the illegal immigration advocates are doing. Don’t think hispanics are getting special treatment? When was the last time you saw a billboard in Polish, German or Italian from a major beer manufacturer? We have HEINEKEN signs in SPANISH here in Phoenix.
18- “You really must be naive or simple to come to the conclusions you have..”
Maybe.
Agree with the below commentary?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5kBN3KtOI
Yes TT, I do agree with this video, hence I used Aravosis as my example. See he thinks that it is his duty to uncloset all conservative homosexuals…I guess maybe he should listen to the video. It is no one’s business but the individuals to come out on their terms..there is nothing democrat or republican about it..
“It’s worth noting that all three of the heavy-weight Republican contenders, McCain, Romney, and Giuliani, have publicly denounced Ann’s comment. You however, still seem to support her. Does that say how far out on the fringe you really are?”
Exactly.
“I thought racists were those who thought one race should get preferential treatment because of their race”
They are. That’s why anti-immigrant crowd is mostly racist. They want to maintian the white status-quo in your communities.
You’re afraid of brown skinned, different language speaking peoples coming to your town and “changing” things from they way they used to be.
I think it’s awesome, and is a sign of how great America is that we have “HEINEKEN signs in SPANISH in Phoenix”.
San Fran The Pro illegal alien crowd is the one seeking to have one race receive special treatment. THAT MAKES THEM THE RACISTS. I have no problem with LEGAL immigration. HOWEVER, I do expect them to follow the SAME rules as my dad’s father did coming here from Poland. As for the signs in Spanish, why is the only foreign language that is supplanting English in this country is SPANISH. A language that hasn’t been the official language of a single first world country since the 16th century? You don’t live in a state that is being overrun by illegal aliens who commit violent crimes constantly. While a lot of them are only here to work, they are 6 times as likely to be felons as the average legal resident. The numbers are that while they represent 3-4 % of the overall population, they represent 24% of the prison population nationwide. That doesn’t include those who are incarcerated in county jails for minor crimes. Simple background checks before allowing them into the country, the same background check required for immigrants from non Spanish speaking countries, would reduce that number. The vast majority of the murders committed in southern California are committed by illegal aliens who then jump back across the border into Mexico.
You, like most liberals, lack the ability to support your pathetic arguments with historical facts so you resort to name calling.