Elizabeth Edwards calls in to Hardball to confront Ann Coulter, who has called John Edwards a “faggot” and yesterday said “[I]f I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
Related posts:
- At long last, Ms. Coulter, have you no decency?
- San Francisco Chronicle wonders if Ann Coulter’s a boy
Update: Melissa McEwan thinks it’s unfair to call Ann Coulter a transsexual. I’m not saying she is, but it seems a fair question to ask her about since people have been saying it for a long time and she’s never responded, and because she’s calling people “faggot” she’s opened the door to questions about her own sexual identity.
June 27, 2007 at 4:38 am
I Believe that Coulter is a complete moron, and and over rated washed up has been, she is so miserable about everything, she hates everything, look at her, she hates Edwards, Clinton, She hates Blacks, Whites, Gay and Straight, why you ask, LOOK AT HER, she is a HUGE CLOSETED LESBIAN, usually the ones that hate gay’s, in my opinion, noted i said usually, they are gay themselves. She hates Blacks and Whites, but yet who is really all White and all Black. we All Bleed teh same way, Prick me do i not bleed….. Gay, Straight, Black, White. We all fight for the same causes, cures for Diseases, And work for the same cause to always always feel love, and to feel Respected. You can be vocal and speak your truth’s, just go about it in a nicer way. Ann Coulter, SHUT UP………
June 27, 2007 at 5:20 am
This should be interesting…
Thanks for passing it along.
Peace,
=RD=
June 27, 2007 at 8:29 am
Jimmy, usually people who express hatred are quite conflicted internally with their own demons. It’s hard for me to understand how anyone could hate “TEH GAY” unless they are afraid of some kind of “illicit temptation” themselves.
June 27, 2007 at 9:52 am
Thanks RD. Nice blog you have.
June 27, 2007 at 11:19 am
Call me old fashioned, but I think we should first determine species before we attempt any sexual identification.
Given the wide range of this entity’s expressed hatred, I don’t think we can make any assumptions.
It would be pretty embarrassing to have identified the Coulter as a transsexual human, and discover that she was a secondary female Denebian.
As Coulter is a lawyer, anything is possible.
June 27, 2007 at 11:32 am
Bryan, I don’t want to go there. I could hurl insults at her, but it would just feed her power and she is probably better at insults than most because she gets so much practice being insulting.
I’m just saying she’s opened the door to questions about her sexual identity and preferences since she brought it up.
June 27, 2007 at 11:36 am
By the way, I think you owe the Denebians an apology.
June 27, 2007 at 2:55 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how those who profess to follow Christ and his teachings sink to such levels, giving someone like Coulter so much credence.
June 27, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Who has given her credence?
June 30, 2007 at 2:45 pm
So, by calling Mitt Romney a psychopath, have you opened the door to questions about your own mental fitness?
June 30, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Do you have a question?
June 30, 2007 at 3:14 pm
If I do, is it fair to ask?
Also, is it fair to make pronouncements about your mental fitness, as you did with Romney?
June 30, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I think it depends on the question, Fred.
June 30, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Say your peace.
June 30, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I never said I have anything in particular to say. I just want you to say whether or not it’s fair game in your opinion. Is it?
June 30, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Some questions are probably fair, others probably are not. If you have a question, ask it. If it’s fair, I might even answer.
If you have nothing to say, you are using too many words to say it.
June 30, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Ah, but whig, you’re the one who is using many words, while strenuously avoiding actually saying something.
I’ll ask it again this way: Is it fair to pronounce someone as mentally defective, based on actions they took many years ago?
The question only requires a one word answer.
June 30, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Maybe. I think it would depend on the actions and whether there was evidence of any change in behavior since then.
June 30, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I wouldn’t use the term “mentally defective,” though. The fact is, Mitt Romney evidences a lack of compassion, which is a human emotion most of us have.
July 1, 2007 at 10:48 am
[...] Elizabeth Edwards confronts Ann Coulter, Live on Hardball This entry was written by whig and posted on July 1, 2007 at 10:26 am and filed under Analysis, America, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Glasgow [...]
July 1, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Of course, it depends, doesn’t it? If it’s you doing the namecalling and hurling the insults, in your mind it’s always fair and justified. But you’re not going to give someone else carte blanche to do the same to you, oh no sir.
As for “evidence of any change in behavior since then,” suppose, years ago, someone engaged in behavior that is widely associated with mental instability of one sort or another. Is it fair to pronounce that back then they were mentally unstable?
You casually declared Mitt Romney a psychopath, based on a third-hand account of how he treated his dog during a family trip over two decades ago. That’s why I’m asking this question. I don’t understand why you’re being so evasive about it.
July 1, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I think the fact that Mitt Romney wants to “double Guantanamo” is sufficient to understand that he does not care much for human beings either.
July 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Also, it was a first hand account he gave as evidence of his compassion-free policy.
July 1, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I don’t really care what Romney is or isn’t. I’m not a supporter of Romney, or any politician for that matter.
Are you ever going to answer my question?
July 1, 2007 at 1:59 pm
And one minor nit: You didn’t get the story on Romney first-hand. You got it from an article about an article based on an interview with his son, IIRC. And the fact that it used PETA as a subject matter expert doesn’t suggest objectivity on the part of the writer.
July 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I don’t claim objectivity, Ann. What’s your question?
July 1, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Are you implying that I’m really Ann Coulter, or were you addressing someone else?
Anyway, here again is my question:
Suppose, years ago, someone engaged in behavior that is widely associated with mental instability of one sort or another. Is it fair to pronounce that back then they were mentally unstable?
July 1, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Just to bring this back around to the original question:
So, by calling Mitt Romney a psychopath, have you opened the door to questions about your own mental fitness?
July 1, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Oh what the hell, I’ll go ahead and ask, since you “opened the door”.
Have you ever been examined, treated or diagnosed for actual or possible mental illness of any kind?
July 1, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Do you want to see my medical records now?
July 1, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I do think that this is an example of a question which cannot be fairly answered, along the lines of marginalizing anyone who might ever have been treated for depression.
July 1, 2007 at 4:05 pm
What information would you like to volunteer about yourself, Fred?
July 1, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Just summarize the parts dealing with your mental health, please.
July 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I don’t understand. Many public figures have been very candid about their struggles with mental illness, and in doing so, they, in my opinion, de-marginalize people who are/were in a similiar situation.
July 1, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I’ve never had any mental health issues to deal with, thankfully.
July 1, 2007 at 4:28 pm
You are very skilled, Ann. If you aren’t her, take it as a compliment.
July 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm
So whig, are you going to summarize the parts of your medical records that pertain to your mental health? You opened the door with your statement about Romney, after all.
And BTW, I doubt that Ann Coulter is aware of this blog’s existance. Do you actually think it’s remotely likely that she read this post?
July 1, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Mitt Romney is running for president. As such he is subject to public scrutiny of his character and history. To withhold comment in such a case is to invite disaster. He displays simple unconcern for human beings. The word for a person who has no empathy is ‘psychopath.’ Look it up.
This is political speech, after all, and if you don’t agree with my characterization or think a better word would suit, you may certainly offer an opinion in that regard.
So no, see my response in #30 and understand that I do not expect my commenters to submit to a physical to participate here either.
July 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm
As to whether or not Ann reads this blog, that might depend on whether you are or are not she. I think that this thread could well come up on a search engine, and she would be vain enough to search Google with her name.
July 1, 2007 at 6:20 pm
More evasion.
C’mon, whig. By your own reasoning, you have opened the door to questions about your own mental health. Why are you so reluctant to answer them?
July 1, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Is that vain? Have you never searched for your own name on Google? I don’t mind admitting that I have. In fact, I suppose most people who know about Google have done exactly that at one time or another.
And, sorry if this disappoints you whig, but I googled ["Ann Coulter" "Elizabeth Edwards"] and out of the 1,110,000 hits, your blog was not among the hits on the first five or so pages that I browsed. I’m sure this post is in there somewhere, but probably not high enough in page rank that Ann Coulter would find it while searching on her own name.
July 1, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Try blogsearch.google.com sometime. It brings up cannablog in the top results quite regularly. Usually only when the article is fairly current, so this one would be pretty far down the list by now, but would have probably been a number one or two link.
Let me make it easy, okay? Do you deny being Ann Coulter? Because I will just drop it and call you Fred.
July 1, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Again, whig, I’m not Ann Coulter. And the fact that you don’t seem to be joking, and really do seem to think I might be her, raises questions in my mind about your mental fitness.
I’m just sayin’.
July 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Wow, you really aren’t joking, are you?
Uh, no, whig, I assure you, I’m not Ann Coulter, sitting here posting on your blog.
July 1, 2007 at 6:40 pm
In fact the top result on the blogsearch using the terms you provided gives D.R. Scott’s post that I linked here earlier today, interestingly enough and is the trackback below.
July 1, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Okay Fred, I accept that you are not Ann Coulter. How did you find this blog?
July 1, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I read one of your posts on slashdot some time back, and clicked the link.
July 1, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Since I haven’t posted there in awhile I wonder how you came across something there, unless you were looking particularly for me. What makes you so interested?
July 1, 2007 at 8:29 pm
As I said, it was a while back, and I was just reading slashdot, as I do occasionally. And I’m not particularly interested.
July 1, 2007 at 8:34 pm
So you’ve been reading Cannablog for awhile then, I take it. You must like it, I’m glad.
July 2, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Anyway, whig, applying your reasoning, I think it’s fair to ask whether or not you’ve had mental problems in the past, and since you say above:
I think you’ll agree that your refusal to say whether or not you’ve had mental problems in the past is significant, and I suspect that because you refuse to answer, the answer is probably yes.
And I’ll engage in the same sort of armchair psychiatry that you did with Mitt Romney, and pronounce that today, you, whig of cannablog, are afflicted with Narcissistic personality disorder, as evidenced by the fact that you thought that out of the thousands upon thousands of blogs that talk about what an evil shrew Ann Coulter is, that she would choose your little Z-list blog on which to post as a sock puppet.
You need therapy, boy.
July 2, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Anyway, whig, applying your reasoning, I think it’s fair to ask whether or not you’ve had mental problems in the past, and since you say above:
I think you’ll agree that your refusal to say whether or not you’ve had mental problems in the past is significant, and I suspect that because you refuse to answer, the answer is probably yes.
And I’ll engage in the same sort of armchair psychiatry that you did with Mitt Romney, and pronounce that today, you, whig of cannablog, are afflicted with Narcissistic personality disorder, as evidenced by the fact that you thought that out of the thousands upon thousands of blogs that talk about what an evil shrew Ann Coulter is, that she would choose your little Z-list blog on which to post as a sock puppet.
You need therapy, boy.
July 2, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Thanks for your diagnosis, Fred.
July 2, 2007 at 4:22 pm
So what do you think, Fred? Does Ann Coulter help John Edwards the more she attacks him and his family?
July 2, 2007 at 4:28 pm
(By the way, when you include multiple links in your comment, it holds the comment for moderation. One link usually doesn’t cause a delay.)
July 2, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Also, this thread’s still getting lots of traffic. It will be the most viewed post for the last two days running.
July 2, 2007 at 4:37 pm
By the way, when quoting somebody, cutting it off at the comma is often a good way to mislead.
July 2, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Don’t know, don’t care.
July 2, 2007 at 5:29 pm
So Fred, the only person you seem to care about is me. Why do you care so much?
July 2, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Uh, whig, not to put too sharp a point on it, but you keep providing more evidence of a narcissistic personality disorder with statements like that. You are not the “only person [I] care about.” Really.
And Ann Coulter is not posting on your little blog.
Have you ever been committed to a mental health facility?
July 2, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Having carefully considered it, I do not believe it is appropriate to answer such a question. I know that some bloggers that I value highly have disclosed mental illness, and I would not want to marginalize anyone on the basis of prior commitment.
July 2, 2007 at 8:32 pm
fred,
As i see it Romney’s mental health is an issue because he is running for office, if he wasn’t I would not give a fuck about it, but because he is then yes I do care and think that everybody else should as well. Whig is not running for office or at least I am not aware of anyone running for office by the name of whig so his mental health history is not a reasonable request. You seem to be the narcissist as you are the one who keeps coming back to the same blog and even the same post to comment and talk, whig is running his blog so of course he is here, but you seem to have nothing better to do than to be an asshat.
July 2, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Considering the sociopath we currently have in the White House, almost anyone would be an improvement. Oh, and Fred, whoever you actually are, if you want to learn about bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses you can come over to my blog.
If you’re willing to disclose your entire mental history openly as well, of course. I have to assume, from your harrassmewnt here of Whig, that you are at least suffering antisocial personality disorder.
If you want to go through the entire DSM-IV, we can do so there to determine your particular disorder. But I would actually recommend a good shrink. You need help.
July 2, 2007 at 9:33 pm
My reason for questioning Fred’s identity is that I asked myself who would have so much interest to dedicate so much time to this thread. I wonder what the reason is, anyhow.
July 3, 2007 at 12:45 am
Whig, why waste so much time and space talking with Fred the concern troll? It’s your blog; just ban his arse and be done with it.
July 3, 2007 at 1:18 am
IB Woodpecker, I don’t mind the troll, it’s just more hits for my little blog.
As long as he keeps on one side of the line and doesn’t make threats or abuse my fellow bloggers and commenters, why not let him keep going?
July 3, 2007 at 4:57 am
Hey Fred, how would you diagnose Ann Coulter? Do you think she’s a model of sanity or do you think she suffers from some kind of problem?
July 3, 2007 at 5:50 am
I never knew before what a brat Ann Coulter is. Grow up!
July 3, 2007 at 7:09 am
As i see it Romney’s mental health is an issue because he is running for office, if he wasn’t I would not give a fuck about it
This is the crux of why Fred’s line of questioning is pointless, as far as I’m concerned. When Whig runs for office, or becomes a prominent political pundit, then hold him to the same standards we hold Romney and Coulter. Until then, moot.
July 3, 2007 at 10:07 am
Sure, you can always arbitrarily draw the line so you’re on one side and someone else is on the other side.
Whig is, if anything, a huge hypocrite. He’s just proven it. Everything I said about him, or asked him, was in line with his own previous statements or questions about or to others. I was just having fun watching him squirm like he did.
It’s true that whig isn’t running for office. In fact, in the big picture, whig is a zero, just one of tens of thousands of Z-list bloggers yapping for attention. He rightly pointed out that this thread will raise his stats slightly, and in that regard I’m happy to help him out.
July 3, 2007 at 10:16 am
Whig, because you refuse to answer a simple question about whether or not you’re a former mental patient, I can only conclude that you are. If the answer to that question were no, you wouldn’t “marginalize” anyone by saying so.
And now let’s review a previous posting of whig of cannablog, a former mental patient, when he thought I was Ann Coulter’s sock puppet:
Let me make it easy, whig of cannablog: Do you deny being a former mental patient? If you deny it, I’ll drop it and no longer refer to you as a former mental patient.
July 3, 2007 at 10:37 am
Asking the same question repeatedly will not give you a different response, Fred.
July 3, 2007 at 11:12 am
You don’t really know how the blogosphere works, do you Fred? You are talking both to Z-list and A-list bloggers here and all points between. I’m somewhere between.
You say you do not care about anything but you do care very much when I suggest Ann Coulter might be vain and you defend her. Are you a fan?
July 3, 2007 at 11:35 am
Do you think if Ann Coulter really did comment on people’s blogs she would use a male alias? I was just thinking she might be like an online transsexual. That’s perfectly cool, by the way. In fact it might be a good idea because if you felt threatened you might want to keep your real identity private and male pseudonyms might be more likely to be treated with respect than openly female names.
It’s a real problem. One of the reasons I really admire Melissa is her ability to build a community that defends her ability to be openly and unapologetically feminist.
July 3, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Sheesh, whig, I’ve kept coming back because arguing with you and pointing out your hypocrisy is like shooting fish in a barrel, and mildly amusing, but it’s getting so easy it’s starting to get boring.
Just how stoned are you when you respond to me? I never defended Ann Coulter, I just responded to your suggestion that googling one’s own name is vain. If it makes you feel better, I’ll concede that Ann Coulter is vain, and mean, and evil, and heartless, and everything else. The truth is, I think very little about Ann Coulter. She’s of very little importance in my world.
July 3, 2007 at 4:35 pm
For the record, see Eight random things about myself, item #2.
I’m glad this blog holds your interest, Fred. I’ve noticed you spend a few hours here a day. Mostly just on this thread, though. Do you sit there and refresh?
July 4, 2007 at 11:03 am
Said whig, of cannablog, a former mental patient who currently exhibits symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Since I’m actively involved in the thread, I keep it open in a firefox tab, which I do in fact occasionally refresh, in order to check for interesting replies.
But alas, whig, it’s your Narcissistic Personality Disorder which leads you to conclude from your access logs that “this blog holds my interest” and that I “spend a few hours a day” here. You’re just flattering yourself.
July 4, 2007 at 11:17 am
Yes, Fred, it is my “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” which keeps bringing you back despite your disinterest in me, my blog, or anything that this thread is about.
July 4, 2007 at 11:38 am
Said whig, of cannablog, a former mental patient who currently exhibits symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Um, no whig, as I just explained, it is my active involvement in this thread that keeps bringing me back here. It is your Narcissistic Personality Disorder which causes you to see it otherwise.
July 4, 2007 at 11:40 am
The thing is the reason for itself. The active involvement in the thread causes the continued involvement. I see. Go on.
July 4, 2007 at 11:51 am
Said whig, of cannablog, a former mental patient who currently exhibits symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Yeah, that’s exactly right. I’m glad you finally got your mind around it.
July 4, 2007 at 11:57 am
Thanks Fred, but as for your diagnosis, I’m afraid I have to demur. This thread is now closed.