If this decision were being made by the readers of those newspapers, then it wouldn't be censorship. Instead, it is being made by central authorities, so it is censorship. Notice that it isn't because of the content of her columns; it's about a mischaracterization of what she said in a public forum. This is exactly censorship.
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
Personally I am all for sensitivity on gay issues. For example, I am supportive of civil marriage for gays. Most conservatives are not. But I also think we need to allow the widest possible latitude to people commenting about the nation's affairs, and be able to take a joke. I think it is a little disingenuous of people who normally are anti-gay to worry about a poorly executed joke. That is the least of the gays' problems.
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
It wasn't apart of her column. Itis about a joke she said on stage!
robert108
· 2 years ago
ZZ: The only real relationship between what Ann said and so-called "gay issues" consists of the hysterical over-reaction of those who pimp for "gay rights". This was a golden opportunity for them to morph a good joke into something for their "cause". In a way, Rob, and the rest of the conservatives who seek to "take out" Ann are right: the homo hustlers have used her joke to make a huge issue out of nothing. Unfortunately for justice, it wasn't Ann's doing, it was the homo hustlers who are the miscreants here. Rob, you blame the wrong person here.
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
IF we are going to be sensitive about homosexuality & the name calling? We need to be consistent.
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
I have heard more from conservatives about how bad it makes conservatives look, than libs.
Keith Casey
· 2 years ago
I was at CPAC and saw her make the comment live and in person. It was literally the last line of her speech and was only the last of a whole string of ripping the left apart.
These papers aren't practicing censorship. If Rush didn't let Howard Dean on his show, it wouldn't be censorship either. An organization has the right to determine who represents them and who they support.
Now I just hope these newspapers will drop the columns of the pundits who throw around the terms "Nazi" and "fascist" without a clue or consideration.... unless they're just hypocrits...
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
Exactly! I really don't get where they come up with Nazi. Ithink the left is more Nazi-ish. Most of them are so anti Israel & pro Socialist.
robert108
· 2 years ago
KC: The reasons this is censorship are twofold: The decision is being made by those who run the newspaper, not by those who read it. If the readers objected, it would be a free market decision, but it isn't. The second reason is that this decision has nothing to do with the content of her columns. They are censoring her to punish her for exercising her free speech rights at a conference. Of course, the underlying agenda here is to try to silence someone who makes lefties look bad.
robert108
· 2 years ago
BTW, KC, if you were at CPAC, you would know that right after her speech, she had a Q&A in which she thoroughly explained what she said. The homo hustlers and the conservative overreactors both ignore what she said in the Q&A. It's available on video, but they disregard what she said there. Wonder why?
Dave
· 2 years ago
[quote]If this decision were being made by the readers of those newspapers, then it wouldn't be censorship. Instead, it is being made by central authorities, so it is censorship. [/quote] I guess I'm being "censored" too. Who knew?
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]I guess I'm being "censored" too. Who knew?[/quote]
How narcissistic of you, Dave. What the hell are you talking about? You can post freely on this blog, and no one is using some comments you made in some other venue as an excuse to stop you from commenting here.
skh.pcola
· 2 years ago
The combined circulation of all three papers is probably <100,000, but this gets picked up by Reuters? What a joke.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Had these papers recieved complaints from all of their subscribers about AC's comment then it would not be censorship, it would be the voice of the people being heard. Such as the situation with the Dixie Chicks. Management at country format stations did not decide to ban/censor the chicks, fans called and emailed and wrote in by snailmail requesting the stations stop playing the chicks. Voice of the people.
And go checkout these 3 "newspapers". I am amazed they carried Ann at all to begin with.
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
Has Rob been censoring your comments, Dave?
Dave
· 2 years ago
Zsa Zsa and rob108: No, Say Anything Blog isn't censoring me; the Washington Post and the New York Times are "censoring" me, according to r108's definition ("If this decision were being made by the readers of those newspapers, then it wouldn't be censorship. Instead, it is being made by central authorities, so it is censorship.")
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
Dave...What does that mean? The Wash, Post & NYT's are cesoring you? I don't get it?
robert108
· 2 years ago
Dave: As usual, you just don't understand analogy. If those papers had decided to pull your regular column(which you had for years) from their publications because of a public statement you made in another venue, you would have a parallel situation. Lacking that, you are simply blowing hot air, as usual.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Since good old Rob doesn't think this is censorship, please tell me if you think the publishers would have had the same reaction to a Left Wing Columnist calling, lets say, Christians bad names? Or, Republican candidates Nazi's? Would they have had their columns dropped? [b]NO![/b] Since the offending comments were made in a speech and not her column, this was only an excuse by the Left to censor the Right. While I do not agree with what Ann said, I will not pretend this is a simple matter of a business decision by these Leftist publishers and I will not join in stabbing a fellow conservative in the back, I adhere to Reagan's 11th Commandment!.
There is nothing I hate more than moderates, people trying to straddle a political, philosophical or religous fence throughout life. If you are to be consistent and support civil-union, which Zsa Zsa called 'civil marriage;' then support Gay marriage, civil unions are a silly attempt by moderate minded, [b]tolerant[/b] people to construct an untenable middle ground between the two. Either marriage is going to remain as it has throughout human history,a sacrament, a lifelong, holy union solely between a man and a woman, as I believe it must be; Or, it will be morphed into some other 'thing,' it will then no longer marriage in the traditional sense but rather some [b]unholy[/b] other [b]thing[/b]. Marriage has to be one thing or another, it cannot remain two or more things!
But this is what bothers me about neo-conservatism (not as usually defined), it is certainly not Reagan Conservatism (That is my conservatism), it is getting much closer to a Rockefellor, liberal Republicanism. If we are divided among ourselves we will forever remain out of power and we should, under Reagan and Newt we became one thing - conservative and held power in Washington for nearly three decades, now like some vile flesh eating bacteria we are eating ourselves alive trying to be socially liberal and tolerant, and yet claiming to be conservatives.[b] It is sickening! [/b]
Dave
· 2 years ago
[quote]Since good old Rob doesn't think this is censorship, please tell me if you think the publishers would have had the same reaction to a Left Wing Columnist calling, lets say, Christians bad names? Or, Republican candidates Nazi's? Would they have had their columns dropped? NO! [/quote] [quote]Rall has also caused considerable controversy with post-9/11 cartoons. The "Terror Widows" cartoon [4] suggested the widows of men murdered in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks were motivated by greed; it was called offensive by many and perceptive by others, and led the New York Times website to drop the strip.
(...)A November 8, 2004, cartoon[10]) depicted mentally disabled children as classroom teachers, drawing complaints from advocates for the disabled and led to (Rall's) cartoons being dropped from The Washington Post's website. [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Rall#Controversies[/url]
[quote]In 2005, Continental Features gave in to their demands, and refused to continue printing the Sunday [i]Doonesbury[/i], causing it to disappear from the 38 Sunday papers that Continental Features printed. [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doonesbury#Criticism[/url]
Nieman: [quote]Since the offending comments were made in a speech and not her column, this was only an excuse by the Left to censor the Right.[/quote] So if I'm the editor of a newspaper, and one of my columnists actively campaigns for the Nazi Party (but doesn't write about it in her columns), I can't fire her? Business owners can't make business decisions? The Editor of a newspaper can do whatever the hell s/he wants--we live in America and have a free press.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Dave; You really think a business has the right to fire a person for their private political beliefs? If so, then why shouldn't all Democrat owned businesses fire every conservative employee? I am a conservative Christian, can I fire every homosexual activist for their homosexual political beliefs and actions? If a person's private political beliefs do not impact their on the job performance, I beleive they could sue and win damages is fired for those beliefs.
Angry Vertebrate
· 2 years ago
[quote][i]If this decision were being made by the readers of those newspapers, then it wouldn't be censorship. Instead, it is being made by central authorities, so it is censorship. Notice that it isn't because of the content of her columns; it's about a mischaracterization of what she said in a public forum. This is exactly censorship.[/i] --Robert108[/quote] *AV puts on the capitalist hat in order t play devil's advocate* Funny. Are you saying that the papers aren't allowed to print whatever they like with their capital? The market will determine whether the content they print is desirable.
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]Are you saying that the papers aren't allowed to print whatever they like with their capital? [b]No, I'm saying that the owners of the papers in question are censoring Ann for political reasons, not economic ones.[/b] The market will determine whether the content they print is desirable. [b]Yes, that is why I wrote the part about the readers of those papers, get it? The consumers are the market.[/b][/quote]
robert108
· 2 years ago
BTW, AV, thanks for admitting that you are a liar and a troll("devil's advocate"); it will take a whole lot more than a hat.
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]...after the conservative author referred to U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot."[/quote]
What she really said was that she would have to go to rehab for using the word "faggot". At least quote her accurately.
Move_Zig
· 2 years ago
Some of you might recognize that I have said this before, but I believe it applies here:
The issue is NOT that Ann Coulter said (even indirectly) that Edwards was a faggot.
The issue IS Ann Coulter is an extremely effective conservative columnist and THIS is an OPPORTUNITY to TAKE HER OUT. It is the political warfare equivalent of takng out leadership and officers via sniping. DeLay, Packwood, Anita Bryant, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Richard Nixon, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and so on and so on.
Remember how the victims above were attacked, many of whom taken out?
The tactics of the Left work primarily because Conservative Americans don't realize that this is a war and that don't even understand that a pattern exists. They take each instance as an isolated occurance and never learn from the past.
Besides...
homosexuality is NOT a protected class, as much as the Left would dearly love to make it one. It is a deviant and perverted practice and taken from a medical / actuarial perspective, highly dangerous to themselves and others (being the primary vector of AIDs/HIV, tainting the blood supply and the general population).
I am disappointed that conservative Americans like Rob, as well meaning and as noble as their intentions may be, aid and abet the tactics of personal destruction of the Left by joining in on the chorus of condemnation. I would rather they hold the Left to the same standard they would apply to us (their enemies) and once we see that their outrage is pure hypocrisy, completely discount their ravings as [i]a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.[/i]
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
Nieman, you ignorant slut! I used the term civil marriage to differentiate it from a religious ceremony. I am for the passage of laws at the state level that allow one gay person to marry another. What churches choose to recognize is another question altogether. But, I am also for people learning how to take a joke, so I also enjoy the humor of Ann Coulter, even when she engages in edgy humor. I am as much a Reagan conservative as anyone, and I don't straddle positions. So take your hate and shove it up your religious fanatical fantail...
Proof
· 2 years ago
[quote]Nieman, you ignorant slut! [/quote] Zsa Zsa: I [i]do[/i] believe that is the harshest language I've seen you use here! You must have really gotten worked up!
[quote]So take your hate and shove it up your religious fanatical fantail... [/quote]
LOL
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
I already sent Rob an email & told him the check is in the mail... I hope you all will pardon my expressions??? BUT Neiman is sooooo self righteous & he reeeeeally gets on my nerves! I apologize for cussing. BUT it sure felt good! It is worth every cent!
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Move_Zig: Excellent post! Please be careful, Zsa Zsa may soon call you an ignorant slut!
Reference Zsa Zsa: 1. I am laughing so hard, I knew she would go ballistic, the farther one is to the left the greater their anger quotient! 2. Not only did she call it [b]civil marriage[/b] in her first post, she repeated it when she said, "I am for the passage of laws at the state level that allow one gay person to [b]marry[/b] another." So she protests me using her own words, her own clearly stated positions against her. She favors gay marriage, that is a liberal position. 3. Zsa Zsa on repeated occasions has expressed an extreme hatred for all things Christian and while like Rob she is an atheist, he does not display the extreme hatred for Christ and the Church as she does. 4. She insists she is a Reagan Conservative and no moderate while she sits on the fence about homosexual marriage. She is not calling for homosexual marriage, she just wants to change the law to allow homosexuals to "marry one another." What? Homosexuals have always been able to enter into legal contracts with each other, just not claim to be married or have claim to social security benefits and other things normally granted to a surviving spouse.
Two points I made and Move_Zig made are true: [b]A[/b]. Conservatives have to stop sniping and killing our own. That means even when it comes to Ann's bomb throwing, we can disagree with her choice of words or poor humor, but when she is attacked by the Left and her columns are cancelled - we should not join the chorus and aid them in throwing her to the wolves. [b]B[/b]. When we join the Left as Zsa Zsa does in making homosexuals a protected class and granting them the legal right to any arangement that can be described as marriage, we are sending a mixed message to the electorate and telling Christian Conservatives they are no longer welcome in the Zsa Zsa Republican Party!
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Zsa Zsa: [b]Self-Righteous[/b]? You ignorant liberal, self-righteous means that I believe I am more righteous; that is, in right standing with God than other people. I challenge you to find anything in any post on any subject which even implied I have a view that I possess a righteousness greater than any other human being. So, if you are going to engage in such juvenile crap, please use accurate terms to demean and denigrate my character. I am sure as a good liberal you have many expletives you could employ that will make you feel good!
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
Nieman, I guess your fantail is too tight for you to stick all your hate in??? So you continue to spew it at me. You mischaracterize my religious beliefs & my political beliefs and say there is nothing you hate worse than a straddling moderate. Referring to me. I have not put my religious beliefs at issue, and I will put my Reagan Republican credentials up against anyone's. I don't think your approach will win many converts to the conservative side. I have known many self-righteous, judgmental people who damn people to hell for disagreeing with them! AND your posts over the last few months reflect that attitude...
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Zsa Zsa: Either produce quotations that indicate a professed self-righteousness and/or my condemning anyone to hell or show to one and all that you are a liar.
There is not one word or intimation of hatred in any of my posts towards any one person - not one person! I hate [i]the moderate beliefs[/i] of conservatives in a general way, a tendency on their part towards toleration and liberalism by many pretending to be conservatives, but I hate no one. It is sufficient to note you are willing to put off conservatives and drive them out of the party by demanding they only speak as you want them to and that they believe exactly as you do! Zsa Zsa says you can be a Christian and a conservative, just keep your mouth shut about homosexuals and that Christianity crap! Yes, I believe you hate me and all Christians if we dare defend our beliefs or speak about any issue that is not 100% in agreement with your own.
I am not interested in winning converts to anything, I am interested in the truth though. It is you that started this batle a long time ago when I had the temerity, the unmitigated gall to express my Christians beliefs with passion and thoroughness.
I do enjoy getting you all upset though, it is a lot of fun!
Angry Vertebrate
· 2 years ago
[quote][i]I am not interested in winning converts to anything, I am interested in the truth though.[/i] --Neiman[/quote] Why spout so much religious rhetoric then? Religion, pretty much by definition, is the preference for faith over truth.
[quote][i]I do enjoy getting you all upset though, it is a lot of fun![/i] --Neiman[/quote] You think upsetting people is fun? Especially someone that is a religious conservative that probably agrees with a lot of your points, except that she doesn't have an irrational hate of homosexuality.
Zsa Zsa
· 2 years ago
Thanks, Anarchist Vegetarian! That makes me feel alot better...
All Comments
In a way, Rob, and the rest of the conservatives who seek to "take out" Ann are right: the homo hustlers have used her joke to make a huge issue out of nothing. Unfortunately for justice, it wasn't Ann's doing, it was the homo hustlers who are the miscreants here. Rob, you blame the wrong person here.
These papers aren't practicing censorship. If Rush didn't let Howard Dean on his show, it wouldn't be censorship either. An organization has the right to determine who represents them and who they support.
Now I just hope these newspapers will drop the columns of the pundits who throw around the terms "Nazi" and "fascist" without a clue or consideration.... unless they're just hypocrits...
Of course, the underlying agenda here is to try to silence someone who makes lefties look bad.
How narcissistic of you, Dave. What the hell are you talking about? You can post freely on this blog, and no one is using some comments you made in some other venue as an excuse to stop you from commenting here.
And go checkout these 3 "newspapers". I am amazed they carried Ann at all to begin with.
There is nothing I hate more than moderates, people trying to straddle a political, philosophical or religous fence throughout life. If you are to be consistent and support civil-union, which Zsa Zsa called 'civil marriage;' then support Gay marriage, civil unions are a silly attempt by moderate minded, [b]tolerant[/b] people to construct an untenable middle ground between the two. Either marriage is going to remain as it has throughout human history,a sacrament, a lifelong, holy union solely between a man and a woman, as I believe it must be; Or, it will be morphed into some other 'thing,' it will then no longer marriage in the traditional sense but rather some [b]unholy[/b] other [b]thing[/b]. Marriage has to be one thing or another, it cannot remain two or more things!
But this is what bothers me about neo-conservatism (not as usually defined), it is certainly not Reagan Conservatism (That is my conservatism), it is getting much closer to a Rockefellor, liberal Republicanism. If we are divided among ourselves we will forever remain out of power and we should, under Reagan and Newt we became one thing - conservative and held power in Washington for nearly three decades, now like some vile flesh eating bacteria we are eating ourselves alive trying to be socially liberal and tolerant, and yet claiming to be conservatives.[b] It is sickening! [/b]
[quote]Rall has also caused considerable controversy with post-9/11 cartoons. The "Terror Widows" cartoon [4] suggested the widows of men murdered in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks were motivated by greed; it was called offensive by many and perceptive by others, and led the New York Times website to drop the strip.
(...)A November 8, 2004, cartoon[10]) depicted mentally disabled children as classroom teachers, drawing complaints from advocates for the disabled and led to (Rall's) cartoons being dropped from The Washington Post's website. [/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Rall#Controversies[/url]
[quote]In 2005, Continental Features gave in to their demands, and refused to continue printing the Sunday [i]Doonesbury[/i], causing it to disappear from the 38 Sunday papers that Continental Features printed. [/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doonesbury#Criticism[/url]
Nieman: [quote]Since the offending comments were made in a speech and not her column, this was only an excuse by the Left to censor the Right.[/quote] So if I'm the editor of a newspaper, and one of my columnists actively campaigns for the Nazi Party (but doesn't write about it in her columns), I can't fire her? Business owners can't make business decisions? The Editor of a newspaper can do whatever the hell s/he wants--we live in America and have a free press.
*AV puts on the capitalist hat in order t play devil's advocate*
Funny. Are you saying that the papers aren't allowed to print whatever they like with their capital? The market will determine whether the content they print is desirable.
What she really said was that she would have to go to rehab for using the word "faggot". At least quote her accurately.
The issue is NOT that Ann Coulter said (even indirectly) that Edwards was a faggot.
The issue IS Ann Coulter is an extremely effective conservative columnist and THIS is an OPPORTUNITY to TAKE HER OUT. It is the political warfare equivalent of takng out leadership and officers via sniping. DeLay, Packwood, Anita Bryant, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Richard Nixon, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and so on and so on.
Remember how the victims above were attacked, many of whom taken out?
The tactics of the Left work primarily because Conservative Americans don't realize that this is a war and that don't even understand that a pattern exists. They take each instance as an isolated occurance and never learn from the past.
Besides...
homosexuality is NOT a protected class, as much as the Left would dearly love to make it one. It is a deviant and perverted practice and taken from a medical / actuarial perspective, highly dangerous to themselves and others (being the primary vector of AIDs/HIV, tainting the blood supply and the general population).
I am disappointed that conservative Americans like Rob, as well meaning and as noble as their intentions may be, aid and abet the tactics of personal destruction of the Left by joining in on the chorus of condemnation. I would rather they hold the Left to the same standard they would apply to us (their enemies) and once we see that their outrage is pure hypocrisy, completely discount their ravings as [i]a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.[/i]
Zsa Zsa: I [i]do[/i] believe that is the harshest language I've seen you use here! You must have really gotten worked up!
[quote]So take your hate and shove it up your religious fanatical fantail... [/quote]
LOL
Reference Zsa Zsa:
1. I am laughing so hard, I knew she would go ballistic, the farther one is to the left the greater their anger quotient!
2. Not only did she call it [b]civil marriage[/b] in her first post, she repeated it when she said, "I am for the passage of laws at the state level that allow one gay person to [b]marry[/b] another." So she protests me using her own words, her own clearly stated positions against her. She favors gay marriage, that is a liberal position.
3. Zsa Zsa on repeated occasions has expressed an extreme hatred for all things Christian and while like Rob she is an atheist, he does not display the extreme hatred for Christ and the Church as she does.
4. She insists she is a Reagan Conservative and no moderate while she sits on the fence about homosexual marriage. She is not calling for homosexual marriage, she just wants to change the law to allow homosexuals to "marry one another." What? Homosexuals have always been able to enter into legal contracts with each other, just not claim to be married or have claim to social security benefits and other things normally granted to a surviving spouse.
Two points I made and Move_Zig made are true: [b]A[/b]. Conservatives have to stop sniping and killing our own. That means even when it comes to Ann's bomb throwing, we can disagree with her choice of words or poor humor, but when she is attacked by the Left and her columns are cancelled - we should not join the chorus and aid them in throwing her to the wolves. [b]B[/b]. When we join the Left as Zsa Zsa does in making homosexuals a protected class and granting them the legal right to any arangement that can be described as marriage, we are sending a mixed message to the electorate and telling Christian Conservatives they are no longer welcome in the Zsa Zsa Republican Party!
There is not one word or intimation of hatred in any of my posts towards any one person - not one person! I hate [i]the moderate beliefs[/i] of conservatives in a general way, a tendency on their part towards toleration and liberalism by many pretending to be conservatives, but I hate no one. It is sufficient to note you are willing to put off conservatives and drive them out of the party by demanding they only speak as you want them to and that they believe exactly as you do! Zsa Zsa says you can be a Christian and a conservative, just keep your mouth shut about homosexuals and that Christianity crap! Yes, I believe you hate me and all Christians if we dare defend our beliefs or speak about any issue that is not 100% in agreement with your own.
I am not interested in winning converts to anything, I am interested in the truth though. It is you that started this batle a long time ago when I had the temerity, the unmitigated gall to express my Christians beliefs with passion and thoroughness.
I do enjoy getting you all upset though, it is a lot of fun!
Why spout so much religious rhetoric then? Religion, pretty much by definition, is the preference for faith over truth.
[quote][i]I do enjoy getting you all upset though, it is a lot of fun![/i] --Neiman[/quote]
You think upsetting people is fun? Especially someone that is a religious conservative that probably agrees with a lot of your points, except that she doesn't have an irrational hate of homosexuality.