Ann Coulter calls US Ebola doc “idiotic,” Africa “disease-ridden cesspool”

Lead Republican thinker Ann Coulter has declared war on American Ebola victims.

In particular, Coulter is upset with Dr. Kent Brantly, a Texas doctor who caught Ebola while doing medicinal missionary work in Liberia.

Brantly and his family travel around the world providing basic medical services in regions of developing countries where basic medicine is rare.

In her latest screed, Coulter says Brantly is “idiotic” for going to a continent that she refers to as a “disease-ridden cesspool.”

Yes, imagine a doctor going where there is disease. What was he thinking?

Coulter says there’s more than enough spiritual healing needed at home in Amurika, so why go and help those darn furnrs.

Ann Coulter wishes John Edwards were assassinatedExcept one problem. While Ann Coulter divides the world up into Americans and others, and Republicans and others, and good Republicans and others, actual good human beings see people as, you know, human beings. And a Liberian in need of medical care is no different from an American in need of the same. They’re both human beings, and Dr. Brantly doesn’t lower the value of the social good by helping a cesspool Liberian instead of a vainglorious American.

Oh, and Jews.

Coulter apparently thinks one of the reason all of our good doctors are leaving the country in order to help dark less-deserving dark people is because of the Jews.

Of course, if Brantly had evangelized in New York City or Los Angeles, The New York Times would get upset and accuse him of anti-Semitism, until he swore — as the pope did — that you don’t have to be a Christian to go to heaven. Evangelize in Liberia, and the Times’ Nicholas Kristof will be totally impressed.

Which explains why American Christians go on “mission trips” to disease-ridden cesspools. They’re tired of fighting the culture war in the U.S., tired of being called homophobes, racists, sexists and bigots. So they slink off to Third World countries, away from American culture to do good works, forgetting that the first rule of life on a riverbank is that any good that one attempts downstream is quickly overtaken by what happens upstream.

Actually, missionaries have been going to “convert the savages” for at least 500 years, and then some. They were doing it back in a day when racism was still a virtue, and nobody had ever even heard of the term “homophobe.”  So no, Ann, missionaries didn’t recently flock to developing countries because they could not preach bigotry in America.

Coulter is confusing missionaries with Republican activists, who regularly travel the world attempting to spread intolerance that is no longer tolerated at home.

But getting back to the main point, what’s so wrong about trying to provide medical services in an African country that’s wanting in health care? I don’t get it. Yes, there are Americans in need too, and how are their lives any more worthy than the life of an African child? (Not to mention, when is the last time Ann Coulter worked at one of those American clinics for the poor that she’s now criticizing Dr. Brantly for not working in?)

This is what’s so dangerous about the Republican insistence on the concept of “American exceptionalism.”  They don’t just think our country is great, they think we’re somehow god-ordained better than the rest, and that therefore our lives are somehow more worthy, have more value, than the lives of those unfortunate enough not to be born American. And it leads them, when they’re caught being brutally honest (as Coulter is wont to do), to the conclusion that it’s “idiotic” to attempt to save the lives of people outside of our borders.  And I just don’t buy it.

Everyone has a cause, everyone has a purpose. We all can’t spend our days fighting on behalf of every issue. I have chosen to devote a good chunk of my life to civil rights, and more generally international social action (I’ve done a lot of international trainings of civil society groups, teaching them to use the Internet for marketing and social change).  And because I’ve devoted myself to becoming an expert in those areas, I haven’t had as much time to develop an expertise in the environment, or racial issues, or women’s issues. It doesn’t mean I don’t care about those issues. It doesn’t mean that I don’t write about those issues from time to time, because I do. But it would be impossible for me to be good at what I do if I tried to be everything to everyone and every cause, lest I leave someone or some thing out.

It’s a gripe I have with the “intersectionalistismyadayadacumbaya” crowd. They want people, and advocacy organizations, to work on every issue simultaneously because it just wouldn’t be fair for, say, a gay rights group to work on gay rights and not climate change. (Though, of course, in Coulter’s case, she’s not worried that Brantly is working with too few nationalities — she thinks Brantly is working with the wrong nationalities.) While it’s all well and good for progressive groups to support each other, and thus for gay groups to support union issues while unions support gay rights (your basic political quid pro quo backscratching to mutual gain), it’s quite another thing entirely when you insist that gay rights groups work on every non-gay cause under the sun, at the expense of their overall mission, which is to promote the civil rights of the people they represent.  No one has unlimited resources, be they time, money, or manpower. You have to triage your concern, or you’ll end up accomplishing nothing.

In the end, you’re forced to rely on the (true) belief that saving the world isn’t a zero-sum game. While you devote all your free time to climate change, others will step up to fill in the gap elsewhere, be it on gay rights, saving the whales, or even God forbid saving the Liberians.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

196 Responses to “Ann Coulter calls US Ebola doc “idiotic,” Africa “disease-ridden cesspool””

  1. The very topic of Coulter means that the subject at hand is immature.

  2. MJ says:

    Because pondering the cleanliness of her sexual organs leads to nothing concluding the accuracy or inaccuracy of her statements.

  3. atalex says:

    No, your not. So, tell me: What is the point — what is the fucking point! — of trying to remain high-minded when discussing one of the vilest and most inhuman creatures to hold a prominent place in American politics?

  4. Houndentenor says:

    Oy. You are just not going to let this go.

  5. MJ says:

    I’m not better than that, and neither are you. You are siding with Franklin Graham just because Ann Coulter criticized him. (Just like gays siding with the homophobic Palestinians ONLY because U.S. evangelists are pro-Israel; or hating the Irish so they can appear classily pro-UK). The only reason I’m siding with Ann Coulter is because in this case she’s right.

  6. Houndentenor says:

    The alternative is to let the guy die. I don’t find that acceptable.

  7. MJ says:

    Then you (with rmthunter below) DO support Franklin Graham. Kent Brantly works for Graham. To get more converts for Graham. I’m not criticizing you out of some vague principle here or trying to be lofty. The gay Africans that wind up victims of these evangelized (or Islamacized) nations REALLY suffer in barbarous ways. For you guys to support Franklin Graham’s agenda, ONLY because Ann Coulter has taken the other side, is pretty selfish…since you yourself don’t live in the danger zone, don’t you think ?

  8. MJ says:

    Then don’t sugggest anything if you’re going to hide under your bed from follow-up questions. Save that wuss behavior for the JMG blog.

  9. MJ says:

    I’m not the moderator, but maybe we could keep that kind of immaturity to other blogs.

  10. atalex says:

    To be fair, Coulter is probably an expert on “disease-ridden cesspools” given the state of her vagina.

  11. walexzee says:

    You see reasons why Republican will never win presidential election. A racist like this DumbHead Coulter can never win election because if she do…….. There will be WORLDWAR III

  12. Houndentenor says:

    I still think Coulter is wrong that we should let medical missionaries die. She’s a sociopathic manipulative hatemonger. I can’t believe you’re actually siding with her. I realize you are rightfully angry about what Evangelicals are doing in Africa but don’t let that anger make you as hateful as they are. You are better than that.

  13. Houndentenor says:

    I think we have pretty good information about Ebola. Read what experts are saying, not the hysteria-provoking misinformation on cable news (any station) that wants people to panic to increase ratings. The people most at risk are health care workers, which is how this guy got infected.

    As far as the anti-gay work goes, I AM gay (in case you are new here and don’t know that) and am often criticial of the homophobic work of right-wing ministers like Rick Warren in getting people killed in Africa for being gay. Fuck Rick Warren and fuck the mainstream media for not researching the story and letting him lie on the air. I got rid of cable a few months ago which has greatly improved my life because there is no actual news on any tv station. I am with you on that issue. I don’t see how allowing someone to die from a disease we may be able to save him from will change any of that. I realize that the same people would be happy to let me die but I’m better than they are. (Not that such superiority required much effort on my part. When the bar is that low there’s not even any jumping required to clear it.)

  14. Houndentenor says:

    Yes, and that’s terrible. Is there something I can do about that because if there is (and it doesn’t involve money because at the moment I don’t have any) I will do it.

  15. Houndentenor says:

    what goulo said. I personally know people who do medical missionary work. I don’t think much of the religious part of what they are doing but the medical part is very real and there is nothing that would replace their work if they stopped.

  16. Houndentenor says:

    If anything I said or did implied that I think anyone anywhere at any time is above scrutiny or criticism then that was a mistake on my part.

  17. MJ says:

    emjayay : In spite of that adorable pic (which you probably don’t deserve) I’m still expecting you to get back to me with contact info. for a right wing gay group that will be effective at fighting world homophobia. Because….

  18. MJ says:

    And….people like Brantly and Graham…maybe ?

  19. MJ says:

    I already said I hope he proves through. BUT he shouldn’t have entered the U.S. untl we know more about how the disease is spread (they CAN mutate). And there’s good probability, looking at his work and history and social circle and employers, that his work is assisting Liberia on it’s road to being a homophobic tyranny.

  20. MJ says:

    So the people stopped it. Every year thousands of child slaves are sold throughout central Africa Today.

  21. MJ says:

    You upvoted the staement about Franklin Graham. Why do you try to backtrack?

  22. MJ says:

    You upvoted the statement that Franklin Graham can do good things in Africa and that his Samaritan’s Purse shouldn’t be judged.

  23. MJ says:

    Twice the door has smacked YOU in the ass. When you approved (upvoted) the statement about being able to expect Franklin Graham to do good things in Africa, and secondly when you used a form of the useless “troll”. (Thirdly, let’s see YOUR medical degree than you can guage Dr, Mark’s posts as being more extensive than yours or mine).

  24. Guest says:

    Evil people will always have a difficult time understanding why some people act unselfishly.

  25. The_Fixer says:

    First of all, you are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about what you think I believe. I don’t think you have a clear insight as to what I believe, especially in light of this particular comment. Let’s run through a few.

    First off, no, selfish Ann Coulter is not right by standards of decency and the ideals of Christianity. Coulter’s public statements have always supported the Christian right, and often using the most uncomplementary and insulting of language directed at those with whom she disagrees. She feels right at home amongst the Franklin Grahams of the world.

    To assume that I endorse these organizations because I said that these Christian organizations did a good thing would be completely wrong. As a card-carrying Atheist, I have an obvious conflict with organized religion. However, I am also a realist. A great many people in this country, and the world over, subscribe to the teachings in a more than 2,000 year-old book that not only has little relevance in our world, but is flat wrong in a lot of its declarations. When the more extreme right evangelical base does something other than spend its time bashing LGBT people and making it more difficult to live in peace, I recognize that. It does not mean that I endorse everything that they do. It means that they did one thing right, and they should be recognized for doing something other than being their hypocritical selves. It’s a small concession that reasonable people give when looking at a situation in detailed, nuanced terms.

    You referred to “the average gay” as being simple-minded and seeing the world in black-and-white. That’s a bit ironic; I’ve tried to look beyond the religious right’s usual hateful agenda to see them as actually having done some good in this one case. People capable of looking at issues with subtlety and detail can divorce one good deed from a series of less-than-virtuous deeds.

    Regarding Ms. Coulter’s premise, that the doctor in question was stupid for going over there, and that they were stupid to bring the doctor back here for treatment: Wrong. In today’s world, we are ever more connected than at any time in history. Not only in terms of communication, but in terms of our ability to quickly travel around the world. Diseases can do the same. While ebola is not a world-wide epidemic, it could be if we don’t get a handle on it. Treating the people who have this disease benefits us all, because it could very well spread under uncontrolled circumstances – i.e. a planeful of infected people, unaware of their infectious status, arriving in the U.S. and scattering throughout the country. These medical professionals are arriving under very controlled circumstances with little danger of infecting others. Read some of Dr. Marks posts here on Americablog – they are well-reasoned, fact-based and reflect his knowledge of the situation (which, I guarantee, is much more extensive than yours or mine). Successful treatment of these people could very well help in treating others who are infected, and it could save lives. If you’re a true humanist, you want to save lives, even the lives of the ones with whom you disagree or find distasteful.

    That should fully explain my view of this. If that bothers you, then we’ll just have to disagree. I’ve seen you trolling for an argument here in several comment posts, and this is as close as I am gonna get to chomping on the bait. Have a good day, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of this debate; it is done with.

  26. Houndentenor says:

    My point was that we shouldn’t abandon this doctor when he needs medical care because we don’t approve of the organization he’s associated with. I don’t like that reasoning at all, and I think if you consider the implications of that line of thinking you wouldn’t either.

  27. Houndentenor says:

    The only reason there isn’t slave trade running through rural Alabama is because we fought a very bloody civil war and forced them to stop and amended the constitution so they couldn’t start up again.

  28. Houndentenor says:

    Agreed. But those things didn’t have to go together.

  29. Houndentenor says:

    So if someone I don’t like does something that thing automatically has to be bad? I don’t support Franklin Graham. I think he’s a horrible person. I do support medical aid work, no matter who is doing it.

  30. Houndentenor says:

    I don’t support anything Franklin Graham. I just don’t think we should allow people to die of Ebola if we can help them, which is what Coulter is suggesting we do. We can talk about the actions of Evangelicals in terms of harm to gay people and others in African nations, but that is separate from the medical missionary work. I reject false binaries. Just because the two sometimes go together doesn’t mean that it has to be all of one and none of the other.

  31. Houndentenor says:

    That’s a good question and should be answered by someone familiar with their culture and history. Perhaps it’s always been part of their culture. Perhaps they learned it from the British during the colonial period. Perhaps it was spread by Fundamentalist Christian missionaries. Or most likely some combination of the three. In the last few decades American Evangelicals have worked very hard to get anti-gay laws passed in African countries with some success. Rick Warren, for one (which he denies in the US but that’s a lie).

  32. rmthunter says:

    Oh, a Godwin. I should have figured you’d get there eventually.

  33. rmthunter says:

    Did you really pose that question? And you can’t figure out the answer for yourself?

  34. rmthunter says:

    Yes, well we know that from listening to the anti-gay right in this country. I’m not addressing claims, I’m looking at what Brantly was actually doing.

  35. MJ says:

    It’s in the order of no such thing. Let others read and decide.

  36. rmthunter says:

    Your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking. If you need a translation of my comment about Graham, it’s more on the order of “if, in spite of himself, Graham has done some good in the world. . . .”

  37. MJ says:

    I don’t have any direct evidence onhand that those working for Hitler were all Nazis, either, but…..

  38. MJ says:

    How could everything re. Uganda, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and maybe next Liberia, NOT be filtered through my bias against Christian missionaries ?

  39. rmthunter says:

    Do you have any evidence that Brantly is homophobic himself? And can you explain why that is relevant to Coulter criticizing him for going to Africa to help in a public health crisis?

  40. MJ says:

    Any Reverend can claim anything. Claim he’s following the teachings of Christ, etc., and it doesn’t necessarily mean he is.

  41. rmthunter says:

    Read Matthew 26. And what has Jim Jones got to do with anything?

  42. rmthunter says:

    I’d be more willing to pay attention to your remarks if you’d stay on topic rather than trying to filter everything through your obvious bias against Christian missionaries. As it is, your reply to my comment is irrelevant.

  43. goulo says:

    OK. So I’ll bow out and wish you a good day! :)

  44. Moderator3 says:

    My concern was not about insulting a moderator. We have very thick skin.

  45. MJ says:

    I was directly insulting some of theother posters, I’ll admit. I was genuinely complimenting Goulo. I wasn’t insulting any moderator. But I’ll tone it down, especially as far as the amount of my posting.

  46. MJ says:

    No, I’m not saying all people aren’t mixtures of good and bad and shades of gray and it’s all complicated and all that. And I’m glad you don’t either. But there ARE some cases where the bad will so far outweigh the good that…….ones good acts just can’t make up for it or used to excuse anything. Look at Dr. Michael swango,for instance. He successfully treated a lot of people, but he’s also suspected of murdering as many as 60 people over time. That 60 people pretty much negates everything else. And that’s how seriously wrong/bad/rotten I see Franklin Graham and this ebola doc. So…we’ll just have toagree to disagree on some of this (IF we disagree).

  47. Moderator3 says:

    Where I come from, this is known as a back handed compliment. You’ve made a sweeping comment that has basically insulted all the commenters. I understand your anger, but can you tone it down?

  48. goulo says:

    OK, you seem to take an extreme view that if someone does bad thing X, then that overrides good thing Y which they do and so one should only criticize X and not praise Y.

    E.g. people who elect to drive cars everywhere are doing ecological harm in the long run, but still, a doctor who drives to work is also helping people, and I wouldn’t say he’s a 100% bad person unworthy of any respect/praise just because he drives a car.

    By your reasoning, it seems like essentially everyone is bad & blameworthy & unworthy of any praise (we all do something wrong, after all, being imperfect humans). Which doesn’t seem a workable or useful attitude for me. I’d rather note/acknowledge both the good and the bad in a person. Seems fairer to the person, as well as more intellectually defensible, and more inspiring/useful.

  49. MJ says:

    Providing medical treatment momentarily might be a good thing, but….in the long run…is it really so, IF it’s all part of a bigger plan to evangelize the people ? It could bring more death in the long run, right ? Medical missionaries were used to evangelize Nigeria, and now the Christians there are so paranoid about devils and demons they actually, quite regularly, murder children who are suspected of being possessed (just one example).

  50. goulo says:

    I think a doctor risking his life helping sick people is obviously doing good. Do you disagree? Attacking him for that medical help (especially with an implication that US sick people are more deserving of help) seems clearly wrong.

    That doesn’t mean he’s not ALSO doing bad in other ways, e.g. spreading evangelical BS & homophobia.

    A person is typically not simply All Good or All Bad.

  51. MJ says:

    Goulo : (Finally, though….somebody here sounds reasonably intelligent).

  52. MJ says:

    You’re wrong. The people here are so simple-minded that they are all supporting the evangelist doctor and his homophobic boss just BECAUSE they don’t like Ann Coulter. You are actually imaginging they can think in shades-of-gray on this blog.

  53. MJ says:

    Well…Houndentenor already gave the thumbs-up to rmthunter’s statement that Franklin Graham can do good things in Africa, so………….?

  54. MJ says:

    And, yes, comparatively Africa IS a cesspool. There’s not a slave trade running through rural Alabama. And Mexico and Alabama aren’t the rape and AIDS capitals of the world like South Africa is.

  55. goulo says:

    What are you talking about? That’s a simplistic all-or-nothing view.

    Criticizing Coulter’s self-serving sensationalistic bigotry does not imply that one unquestioningly supports the guy she’s attacking. You can find plenty of comments at this blog criticizing the evangelical angle of the doctor’s work.

  56. Bill_Perdue says:

    The press are controlled and owned by the banksters and the ultrarich who are, without exception, right wing and they’re the same people who own the Democrat and Republican parties.

    Just as there are no real differences between Democrats and Republicans there are no real differences among the media controlled by the rich. A case in point. Fox’s anti gay sentiments are well know and so are those of MSNBC. Regarding the passage of Putin’s antigay laws MSNBC either exercised self censorship to keep the franchise for the Sochi Olympics or simply bowed to the demands of the bigot Putin. NBC was fully aware of the progress of the Russian bigot law as early as 2006: “Human Rights Watch (HRW) notes that before Sochi was chosen for the 2014 games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and their stakeholders, including American multinational sponsors of the Winter Olympics, as well as NBC Universal, which has the broadcast contract, carefully tracked the path of the legislation… .”
    via JMG

    They continue to have a cozy relationship with Putin. “Openly gay MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts will host the 2013 Miss Universe competition in Russia, replacing Bravo star Andy Cohen, who turned the host position down because he’s “concerned for his safety” as a gay man in a country with anti-gay laws.”

    copy made

  57. MJ says:

    You obviously don’t know of the method evangelists use to “buy” the people using doctors and medical assistance. The doc himself doesn’t have to be actually preaching, as long as the others in his outfit are.

  58. MJ says:

    You actually support Franklin Graham’s interference in Liberia? Are you aware of what gays go through in African countries that have been evangelized ?

  59. MJ says:

    And you’re certainly not going to say AIDS, statistically, is the same in North America as it is in Africa….?

  60. MJ says:

    I still want to know why you support Franklin Graham’s interference in Africa. Is it because you’re safe from the severe anti-gay persecution we see constantly over there ?

  61. MJ says:

    And why do you yourself support Franklin Graham ?

  62. MJ says:

    The absolute best part was when Coulter called Kent Brantly a prime example of “Christian narcissism.” You go, Ann !

  63. MJ says:

    And…are you actually saying you expect Franklin Graham’s influence in African countries will “do some good” ???? You are aware,right, of how both Islam and Christianity has affected the lives of gays in African countries, right ?

  64. MJ says:

    Hello…??? Emjay…….

  65. MJ says:

    Where does their homophobia come from ?

  66. MJ says:

    If the Right Wing gay blogs hold missionaries who spread homophobia in Third World countries responsible, I’m all there. Let me know if you find any. The average (Left Wing ?) gay blogs sure don’t do anything concrete, except wiggle, giggle, and throw about nasty insults.

  67. MJ says:

    Isn’t that….always what the written word is ?

  68. MJ says:

    Maybe. I don’t know of any though. Are they generally….sharper..?

  69. emjayay says:

    OK, that is just random stuff put together in sentence form.

  70. emjayay says:

    Maybe you should switch to right wing gay blogs instead. If there are any. Maybe something to the right of the Log Cabinites.

  71. MJ says:

    So…you’re saying she shouldn’t criticize the homophobic ebola doc and his organization because some of her political allies have…….added to homophobia in Africa as well as Graham and Brantly ?

  72. MJ says:

    But sometimes whores and coke-users and adulterers are completely correct, as she is in this case.

  73. MJ says:

    Not scaredy-cats. Just not reckless.

  74. MJ says:

    She’s right though. An egotistical Christian homophobic organization ships this doctor to Liberia to spread their form of homophobic evangelism, he catches ebola, and rushes back to the U.S. for treatment, possibly endangering the rest of us. And the gays on this board are so simple-minded that they’re actually defending him and Franlin Graham, only because Anne Coulter criticized him. Their simple minds say, “Gee, Ann Coulter don’t like him. So I guess…he’s the GOOD guy!” That’s how black-and-white simple-minded the average gay has become. This blog is still better that the JoeMyGod pea-brained one, but…….

  75. MJ says:

    I don’t think she said anything wrong.

  76. MJ says:

    What did she say that you disagree with ? You surely don’t support the homophobic MD, do you ?

  77. MJ says:

    What makes you think this guy was following the teachings of Christ ??? You think Rev. Jim Jones was too ?

  78. MJ says:

    What a loon. And a selfish egotist.

  79. MJ says:

    Her point was that Kent Brantly is one of those Christian egotists, who is selfish enough to possibly endanger the rest of us.

  80. MJ says:

    If THAT was true than the dopey evangelist doc should have gone to the Appalachia. But of course his boss Franklin Graham can’t find as many converts there so he focuses on Africa.

  81. MJ says:

    Yeah, because we see how well the effect Christian missionaries, medical and otherwise, has been on Uganda, Nigeria, etc. Especially for gays.

  82. MJ says:

    Yeah, the medical treatment is meant to gain credibility in order to spread the evangelism. It’s the age old way of Christian missionaries since they basically can’t force it on people anymore. (Unlike Muslims, who still do the convert-or-die missionary thing).

  83. MJ says:

    Until they use it to plant more of that evangelical homophobia in the peoples’ heads.

  84. Bookbinder says:

    Isn’t his little cult extremely homophobic, and that is a major reason he is visiting this “cesspool?”

  85. Badgerite says:

    It would.

  86. mark_in_toronto says:

    Actually, I think the list of scum sharing these “sentiments” is pretty long. It would be great if it were only a few.

  87. GarySFBCN says:

    I would take it a step further. On this and other blogs, if you chastise Israel and suggest a two-country solution, you will be called a ‘Zionist’ and that you advocate for genocide. Say that the ACA is bad because of no single payer but discuss the benefits of ACA and you are called ‘Obamabot.’

    I believe that those comments and their stridency erodes the quality of many blogs and should also be moderated.

    When I was younger, every demonstration that I participated in, anti-war, anti-nuclear energy, pro-farm worker, etc, the ‘Workers Party’ people (communists) would try to co-opt the efforts into their own agenda, 100% of the time. Like a creepy relative that nobody likes, they’d just show up and try to run everything, often eroding the good work of the event organizers. I kept telling them to go start their own demonstration. Nobody wanted them around and for good reason: Whether it be extremist religionists or hyper political idealists, they have lost their humanity to their dogma.

    Back to my point – it’s time to stop ALL name-calling.

  88. Bill_Perdue says:

    The question I raised was the rightwing approach of the Democrat and Republican parties to hate speech and free speech.

    Your answer merely confirms what I said about the antidemocratic nature of these two parties. The problems with hate speech and free speech in the US are not questions of the Constitution so much as they’re questions about the right wing nature of the implementation of the Constitution by Democrats and Republicans.

    What I’ve got on my mind is ending hate speech which creates violence and promoting democracy. Those are linked questions which can only be solved by socialists because Democrats and Republicans are committed to pandering to the cults and their bigotry and to cutting off openings for democratic solutions.

  89. rmthunter says:

    Mmm — you’ve obviously got a lot on your mind.

    OK — what you describe in the first part of your comment is not abridgement of free speech, and certainly has nothing to do with hate speech — it’s “national security,” which is the default excuse for the government doing whatever it wants to do.

    The last paragraph, again, has nothing to do with free speech — it’s about the natural tendency of those in power to try to stay in power through rigging elections, or at least, drawing safe districts for themselves. Or both. And the “free and uncensored” press doesn’t need to be controlled by the government — it’s done quite a good job of neutering itself.

  90. Bill_Perdue says:

    It’s implementation is done by Democrats like Obama and H Clinton who jailed and tortured Chelsea Manning and forced Snowden into exile, and Republicans who tired to do the same thing to Daniel Ellsberg during the Vietnam war. They just don’t like the truth.

    It’s implemented by the same Democrat and Republican lawbreakers who wrote and voted for FISA and the Paytriot Act, the provisions for detention without trial in Obama’s version of NDAA and who are afraid to criticize Obama’s racist drone murders of Arab and muslim US citizens like like Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, ‘Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi and Jude Mohammed. One was a sixteen year old boy from Denver, Colorado.

    Democrats and Republicans constantly try to keep the left off the ballot with undemocratic election laws and by censoring us and our press and by jailing us. They’ve been doing that since the Palmer Raids during the Wilson Administration and kept it up under each succeeding regime in Washington. It does them no good at all.

  91. rmthunter says:

    Unfortunately, from your point of view, I guess, we have a little thing in this country called the First Amendment, which protects, among other things, the right to say what you please without government interference.

    Yes, there are limits, but as I pointed out above, American law requires a direct link between speech and action before the speech can be considered incitement and prosecuted.

    You get it? It’s not a Democrat or Republican thing. It’s a Constitution thing.

  92. Bill_Perdue says:

    Hate speech as an incitement to violence will never be changed by Democrats or Republicans because those parties pander to the cults.

    Socialists will prosecute hate crimes and those who incite them.

  93. FLL says:

    Thanks for your reply. There’s one final distinction I’d like to make. When John posted pictures of anti-gay neo-Nazi actions in Russia, he was actually breaking a news story. Those pictures had received little coverage until John posted them in his story about neo-Nazi gangs in Russia, and, therefore, those pictures were news. The same cannot be said of posting old, widely available photos of violence and executions just to imply that if someone disagrees with you, they a bad person.

  94. Badgerite says:

    I believe you mean Joan Rivers. Whom I would not describe as ‘typical’.

  95. Badgerite says:

    It isn’t just Ann Coulter. Donald Trump, the erstwhile Republican candidate for the GOP presidential nomination has also piped up with roughly the same sentiment. Though he didn’t express it in quite such a contemptuous way as Coulter did.

  96. Bill_Perdue says:

    I understand the First Amendment very well. It does not permit comments that incite violence.

  97. Bill_Perdue says:

    Thanks for your courage nicho. Your comments are regularly well written and scathing, in spite of the negative and personal comments directed at you.

  98. mark_in_toronto says:

    This will sound a bit strange, but I’ll give it a try . . .
    Since I don’t frequent the “other side” much (fox & such), I have no idea of how much coverage someone like Ann Coulter gets there. And, I appreciate being alerted to the propaganda and ignorance of these false prophets.
    BUT . . .
    This seems like sensationalism on both sides and this type of ‘over-the-top-OMG’ headline is counter-productiove. Sure, it’s like watching an episode of Real Time or The Daily Show and getting a good laugh out of it all, but how can we move on if we keep staying here?
    I know it’s a tough balance these days with so many outlets in the era of “viral” media where no matter what the message is, it can become a huge, widely-distributed matter-of-fact.
    Maybe it’s because of the geographic neutrality of living in Toronto but from here, this is all really starting to look very silly.
    I told you this would sound strange.

  99. FUFatherEisenman says:

    Better a religious goofball actually helping the less fortunate, as their Jesus commanded, than doing as most religious nutballs do, hating everyone that is not like themselves.

  100. Bill_Perdue says:

    More censorship.

  101. The_Fixer says:

    Ah yes, Ms. Coulter is showing us her true nature, as usual. She’s a rare form of vampiress – one that lives off of the light from TV studio lights. She must have needed her regular dose of TV lighting, she’s back to get that which feeds her soul (such as it is). Maybe this will wake up some of those people who find her commentary worth hearing.

    You know, it’s peculiar and revealing when the pious a-holes on the right wing criticize one of the true humanitarian activities that the Christian right has engaged in – that of actually physically helping people who are in need. Generally, the evangelical Christians are too busy to actually help people because they’re all tied up telling us how awful gay people (and others not in their particular club) are. For once, they’re doing something right here. And a right-winger finds fault with that. Maybe the true believers will get a clue from that?

    I get that some of these faith-based relief organizations are looking to increase their memberships through these missions, but I hardly think that a doctor has time to evangelize when trying to treat those suffering from dreaded diseases like Ebola. Those who say otherwise need a heapin’, helpin’ cup ‘o reality served to them post-haste.

    I’d like to think that, at some point, Coulter will have worn out her welcome to the point of finally being ignored. That’s the only cleanser capable of removing this dirt from the national discourse, simply ignoring her. I can’t wait for the day when she is no longer capable of bringing in viewers and readers, for that is the only reason anyone in the news business wants anything to do with her.

  102. MaxBangayvef says:

    Lila . although Matthew `s st0rry is shocking, last wednesday I bought a gorgeous Nissan GT-R: from having made $4749 this month and-also, 10-k this past munth . it’s definitly my favourite work I have ever done . I began this 8-months ago and immediately started making a cool more than $87… per-hr .

    for detail check tech tab….

    go to this web-site

    ==============>> Payatom.Com


  103. Moderator4 says:

    At John’s request, the entire comment, pictures and all, was deleted.

  104. Moderator4 says:

    And this is his response: your comment earlier comment with the three pictures is now deleted.
    We consulted with John, and he instructed us to delete the entire comment, pictures and all.

  105. Hue-Man says:

    One thing that continues to depress me is that Americans seem to have turned into a nation of scaredy-cats. “Don’t let those Ebola patients in, they might infect all 318 million of us.” “The trials of Guantanamo prisoners can’t happen in NYC, it’s too dangerous.” “Guantanamo prisoners can’t be moved to U.S. Supermax prisons, they might escape.”

    Meanwhile, these fearful people climb in their SUVs and talk on their cellphones while staring at the mirror as they apply mascara! I can’t tell if it’s total ignorance or fear of the scary unknown. Although there is an infinitesimally small risk of me contracting Ebola or being gunned down in my home by an Al-Qaeda terrorist, it’s more likely I’m going to die following a massive heart attack!

  106. Houndentenor says:

    Exactly. The owner of the site has the right to decide what content is appropriate and what is not. If you don’t like that, start your own blog and make your own rules.

  107. Houndentenor says:

    Agreed. If they are doing good work, the reason does not matter.

  108. Houndentenor says:

    Exactly. We ignore dangerous diseases in other parts of the world at our own peril. There is nothing to prevent the Flu pandemic from almost a century ago from happening again.

  109. Houndentenor says:

    Disease is often the result of poverty and war. That the Africans fault. It’s the result of centuries of colonial rule and its aftermath.

  110. Houndentenor says:

    She’s a well known liar and always has been. She makes up facts (often that directly contradict the truth) to back up outrageous conclusions. Most of all, however, I think it’s all constructed to anger liberals who will react to the glee of the idiots who actually by her act. I’m not convinced she means a word of it. As for being a “Christian” I find that laughable. There’s nothing Christian at all about her. She’s a whore well known inside the beltway for affairs will wealthy conservative (married) donors, cocaine use, and many other vices that are in no way characteristic of the fundamentalist Christianity she claims to which she claims to adhere. It’s all an act.

  111. FLL says:

    True enough.

  112. Moderator3 says:

    This is John'[s blog. He will decide on our breaking point.

  113. FLL says:

    In my first comment to the moderators above, I mentioned John’s series about violence and kidnapping in Russia for the very reason that they are an obvious contrast to the use of violent photographs on this thread. The photos in John’s series illustrated the activities that John wrote about in his posts, whereas the violent photos on this thread do not illustrate anything concerning the arguments below about free speech and the First Amendment. The photos are just gratuitous and embarrassing. I believe Bill’s intention is to embarrass the website out of spite because of John’s disagreements with him on myriad issues. That’s why I suggested using some standards for commenters’ inclusion of photos depicting death, torture and violence.

  114. FLL says:

    No, Nicho, that someone is you. There are certainly consequences for hateful speech in the U.S., including having your employer fire you. However, those consequences do not include being fined or jailed, which are things that only the government can do. Being fined and jailed is what Bill suggested in his comment, showing that both he and you are the ones who are confused.

    If Bill meant that the U.S. government should remove the First Amendment from the Constitution or alter it to make an exception for hate speech, then he should have said so. But that’s not what Bill said. He just said that Robertson, Warren, Lively and McClurkin should be fined and jailed, which simply shows an ignorance of the current U.S. Constitution. You show the same ignorance. If Bill didn’t write what he meant, then he should learn how to write. If you misunderstood Bill’s comment, then you should learn how to read. And Bill’s photographs depicting death, torture and violence provide no support for his argument—they just turn off visitors to this website. Perhaps that’s Bill’s intention: to embarrass the website because he resents John’s disagreements with his comments. Sounds spiteful to me, don’t you think? But then you never answer my replies to you, Nicho, because you don’t know how to write or form a coherent argument. ;)

  115. docsterx says:

    Yes compare Africa to Asia as far as disease issues, please do. Tell me about poverty and disease there. Or in the slums of Rio. Or other areas of South America. How much is caused by malaria and other parasites, microorganisms, tainted water, pollution, lack of running water, poor sanitation, etc.? How about areas like parts of Appalachia? Native American reservations? No, Ann is using her selective Republican vision/thinking/memory to try to make her point.

  116. rmthunter says:

    Unfortunately, American law requires a more direct link between speech and action.

  117. rmthunter says:

    LaBarbera did, in Canada, and was jailed, briefly, and, if I recall correctly, fined for it.

  118. rmthunter says:

    Given the mess that hate speech laws have made of Europe and Canada, I don’t think they’re something we should institute here. Consider: the more the likes of Coulter, Perkins, Lively,. et al. spout off, the more they lose support.

    What would be more effective would be a press with enough balls to point out what assholes they are.

  119. rmthunter says:

    So what? If he’s turning his religious beliefs into something that actually does some good in the world, I’m not going to condemn him for it, particularly when there are enough “religious goofballs” who only do harm.

  120. rmthunter says:

    Just let me point out that Coulter and her ilk are big supporters of the governments that create those conditions because of their institutionalized homophobia.

    And otherwise, those conditions sound much like any big multinational corporation, especially those with government contracts, give or take the lack of adequate medical care — but they and their “conservative” allies are working on that, aren’t they?

  121. rmthunter says:

    The only thing genuine about Ann Coulter is her sociopathy, coupled with a complete lack of moral foundation. (Of course, the two do tend to go hand in hand.) I’d be amazed to find out she actually believes anything she says — she makes her living by being nasty and outrageous, much like Bryan Fischer, and will say whatever gets her some attention. The teabaggers, being pretty much without moral foundation themselves, eat it up.

    As for the substance of her commentary, there’s no real “argument” there, in any formal sense — just vitriol. Look at it: here’s self-avowed and very public “Christian” Ann Coulter trashing a guy who was actually following the teachings of Christ. Now, if she — and you — want to characterize that as “stupidity” — well, I think that sort of speaks for itself. Considering that Brantly felt that God called him to go to Liberia, that sets up an interesting conundrum. (As for Franklin Graham and the organization that sponsored Brantly, I make no judgments: even the likes of Graham can do some good in the world.) And calling a continent a “cesspool”? Seriously? You might as well say North America is a cesspool based on conditions in rural Alabama or the remoter parts of Mexico.

  122. rmthunter says:

    That’s what bloggers do.

  123. Bill_Perdue says:

    He owns the blog and he’s never been shy about speaking his mind. If he agrees with censorship I’m sure I’ll find out about it.

  124. Moderator4 says:

    You would have to ask John about that. Email him.

  125. MJ says:

    And why don’t the religious fanatics in Africa, blaming the Ebola on homosexuality, see the irony in a religious missionary from another homophobic organization being one to catch it? Another case of God having bad aim ?

  126. MJ says:

    His “lifelong dream”? He said in his last interview that God instructed him to go to Africa. But I have a feeling it’s because his Franklin Graham crew aren’t having much luck converting Americans.

  127. Bill_Perdue says:

    I haven’t seen that. What are you referring to, the post by Dago T?

  128. MJ says:

    She did tell it like it is, though. About both Africa and the evangelist. Compare Africa to any other continent, even aside from AIDS, as far as disease-related issues go. Also, how much of that is caused by rape, government corruption, misuse of medicine and supplies, stolen funds…..? Admittedly, it’s not nice to call someplace a cesspool, though, but it IS hugely dysfunctional compared to….. Europe (let’s say). And I have no sympathy for anyone working for homophobic Franklin Graham, spreading more of those beliefs in other countries. The whole angle to this story, instead of focusing on Ann Coulter, should have been “Homophobic Missionary Catches Ebola Himself and Selfishly Rushes Back To the U.S.”

  129. Bill_Perdue says:

    He”ll probably think they’re apt and to the point, considering the hundreds of photos and videos he published on violence and kidnapping in Russia and the rabid hate speech on Russian social media like VK (In Touch).

  130. docsterx says:

    Tell me, I’ve been reading about it, talking about it with the CDC, infectious disease docs, and writing about it for quite a while now. Humor is often a good way to relieve stress.

  131. docsterx says:

    Tells it like it is? Not at all. She slants her information.

    Africa a cesspool? No, not really. She over generalizes. Areas of Egypt, South Africa, Kenya and other areas are hardly cesspools.

    She used an ad hominem attack on Brantly because she dislikes WHERE he decided to practice, even though that’s been his life long dream. She never mentioned that, just attacked him. Attacked him when he’s unavailable and too ill to defend himself. She’s a coward.

    Her “explanation” of why Americans go off to treat the sick in foreign countries is totally unsubstantiated – merely her opinion. I’d like to hear what Brantley says about that. I’ve spoken with some doctors who have returned from medical missions, whether they were religion-based or secular. Some just back from Liberia within the past month. None has said any of those things that she mentions as drivers for people to go abroad. She manufactured those reasons to fit her political agenda.

    I was online for the CDC conference today. Samaritan’s Purse paid for the air evacs, ZMapp, transport to Atlanta and will be paying part of the bill at Emory. Some of that bill will be underwritten by research funds since it will give doctors a close look at how Ebola patients do when receiving more advanced medical treatment. It may also give them a chance to see if ZMapp is helping. And Samaritan’s Purse and its directors have the funds to pay for treatment.

    BTW, Spain flew Spanish two patients who developed Ebola back to Spain. The government chartered an AIrbus, paid for it and is treating them in a Spanish hospital. One is Liberian nun. The Spanish government is not charging her anything for humanitarian treatment. They have cleared the entire sixth floor of a large hospital to serve as an isolation unit in case more Ebola patients need to be evacuated to Spain. That’s classy. Coulter would rather we let fellow Americans die in the “cesspool.” The only class Coulter shows is low.

    Almost nothing that Coulter said on her post is substantiated. She’s simply vomiting bile as she gives her jaundiced opinion. That’s nowhere near telling it like it is.

  132. Bill_Perdue says:

    People have no opportunity to vote against the haters. They control both parties.

    Christers are christers.

  133. MJ says:

    Funny, okay. (But, c’mon…doc. This is serious stuff..)

  134. docsterx says:

    If she walked into a room full of Ebola patients, the virus would flee. She would be the perfect ANNtibody.

  135. MJ says:

    Her critics need to grow up. She’s mean, but she tells it like it is. Or at least how she sees it. She’s not going to skip criticizing the guy’s stupidity just because he’s a fanatic Christian.

  136. docsterx says:

    Coulter has successfully and seriously pissed of a part of her base with her remarks. Lots of negative comments about her and her thoughts. Some of them went so far as to “charitably” rip her a new one. I think a few were seriously considering stakes, wood and torches. Others are almost eloquent in explaining why some missionaries and doctors would choose to go overseas. One of the kinder things that the authod says about her is,”It’s revolting that Coulter accuses this man who, with his family,
    risked their lives to serve poor Africans, of doing so for the personal
    glory. Something is deeply wrong with that woman.” It’s a shame that they didn’t realize what a self-aggrandizing, amoral, rabid polecat’s whelp she is until she turned on one of their own.

  137. Bill_Perdue says:

    Hate speech is incitement.

    It creates the climate that empowers and encourages the thugs to act. Hate speech will always be a problem in a society where corrupt politicians, like those in the Democrat and Republican parties are in league with corrupt the corrupt frauds who lead cults.

    Calling for sanctions against hate speech directed at the LGBT communities, women, people of color and immigrants is a method of pointing the the total unsuitability of capitalist politicians to govern.

  138. Hue-Man says:

    As long as he wasn’t collecting souls as the price of receiving medical treatment, his motivations are his own. My fundamentalist family members had much the same motivation, although I wonder how successful they were given their poor French language skills. Short of the government confiscating their passports because they’re mentally incompetent, there’s not much that we in North America can do if someone decides they want to go to Liberia.

    Whether someone – government, insurance company, charity, family? – should shell out $100,000+ to ship them back to the U.S., that’s above my pay-grade.

  139. MJ says:

    But Kent Brantly is an evangelical nutcase who claims God called him to work in Africa.

  140. Hue-Man says:

    A decade ago, the 44 deaths in Toronto – mainly among medical staff – from SARS were ample evidence that communicable diseases from anywhere in the world can be on your doorstep tomorrow. Globalization means that disease outbreaks should be of concern to all of us.

    Her dismissal medical workers going to Africa is dim-witted and short-sighted. My medical missionary family members were in Zaire during an earlier Ebola outbreak – you can imagine my reaction getting a post card marked Kikwit. At the same time, I would not have tried to dissuade them from going – medical people can weigh the personal risks better than an anxious uninformed outsider like me. That has not changed in 2014.

    Finally, climate change is going to result in re-emergence in Western Europe and North America of once eradicated tropical diseases that afflict Africa. If you’re skeptical, you might want to start learning about Chikungunya.

  141. Hue-Man says:

    I would go further and ban all graphically violent photographs. I know that one high visibility gay blogger insists that these pictures be shown in all their gory detail or the reader can’t appreciate the entire story. I’m disgusted by these kinds of photos and avoid them.

    I would note that one of my regular sites has disabled photos on Disqus…I know people hate clicking links but I could live with that. Here’s an example (the third picture on the page will bring a smile to your face).

  142. Moderator4 says:

    We know what, and who, you are talking about, but this is something that we have referred to John. It is beyond our limits, unless John gives us the go-ahead.
    Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

  143. Lawerence Collins says:

    The Ann Bola virus is very fatal as well!

  144. MJ says:

    And while he’s at it….clean up the gay misogyny. Some posters (grown men) mocking woman’s sexual organs looks………kinda pathetic. And besides, it doesn’t argue whether her statements are right or wrong.

  145. FLL says:

    To the Moderators:

    I know that there are standards for the text content of comments. You delete those very occasional comments that contain slurs when the intention of the comment is to degrade entire groups of people. However, until recently, there hasn’t been any need for standards regarding the inclusion of photographs in comments. There are contexts in which the inclusion of a photograph that very graphically depicts death, torture and violence is apt because it supports the argument of the text. An example would when John Aravosis has included photographs depicting the activities of anti-gay neo-Nazis in Russia. Another example would be including a photograph of the execution of gay teenagers in Iran when that is actually the topic of the comment. However, I think it would be contrary to anyone’s standards to use such photographs in a gratuitous and spiteful way that does nothing to further the commenter’s argument. In the discussion downthread regarding hate speech, free speech and the First Amendment, the intentionally grotesque selection of photographs depicting death, torture and violence does nothing to further any argument regarding speech and the First Amendment.

    The inclusion of those photographs seems to be a form of collective punishment in retaliation for one commenter disagreeing with another. I say collective because it makes visitors less likely to give Americablog’s website serious consideration, which would be a shame considering the many serious stories that this site has broken over the years. For the sake of argument, pretend you had never visited this website before. What would your impression of Americablog be if you casually scrolled down and saw the photographs on this thread, then read the comments and realized that the photographs had little to do with the arguments? I doubt if you would be favorably impressed. The standards for including photographs are up to you. You’re the moderators. My only observation is that the worst thing to do would be to have no standards at all regarding photographs with extreme content like the ones you see on this thread. I’m just offering what I think is a modest proposal.

  146. MJ says:

    She’s anything but cowardly. Contemptible, maybe, but…. And I still can’t see where she’s wrong re. Kent Brantly and Africa.

  147. RepubAnon says:

    No, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment – you’re talking about incitement. It’s a slippery slope: up until the Warren Court began requiring some threat of imminent harm, you could be arrested for speech that someone claimed might incite someone to commit a crime. It sounds great, until activists start getting arrested for speaking up in favor of the Dreamers because such speech might incite folks to violate the immigration laws.

    Look up the anti-sedition cases during World War 1: one guy was put in prison for 10 years because he said that the government wasn’t doing enough to help the widows and children of dead soldiers… the government successfully claimed that his speech might cause someone to violate the draft laws.

    Remember that the Republicans claim that anyone talking about global warming hates coal – they’d be quite happy to classify climate science as hate speech and begin locking up dissenters. Lets not go there.

  148. RepubAnon says:

    Bad idea – imagine the ALEC-driven legislation defining climate change discussions as hate speech. The better idea is to convince people to vote against the haters, and ignore folks such as Ann Coulter.

    P.S.: Leprosy scared folks in Biblical times as much as Ebola scares people today. Funny, but I don’t recall Jesus telling folks to treat lepers badly… I guess Jesus was a Christian rather than a True Kristian* like Ann Coulter.

    *Just as Krab is fake crab, Kristians are fake Christians – it’s easy to spot them: they sanctimoniously ask “What Would Jesus Do” and then proceed to do the exact opposite.

  149. Butch1 says:

    You bet.

  150. angryspittle says:

    Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.

  151. MJ says:

    Bloggers can’t wait to shine a spotlight.

  152. Rob says:

    Breaking news: Ann Coulter says something stupid, divisive, and shocking and the media shines a spotlight on her because it can’t help itself. This is how she makes a living, and of course every time reporters, too stupid to realize that they’re being played like a banjo, all scramble to feign outrage, ignorant of the fact that they are her creator and they sustain her.

  153. Mike F says:

    I think the Old Mann and the Screed have crossed over into the realm of self-satire. I actually found myself laughing whilst reading her orally-gymnastic blathering.

  154. MJ says:

    And, though Coulter could have said it in a kinder way, she’s not too far off re. the African continent and disease.

  155. MJ says:

    Or, in Kent Brantly’s case, perhaps to spread more religious nuttery and homophobia. She’s actually RIGHT about the guy.

  156. MJ says:

    But he’s also a religious goofball.

  157. MJ says:

    Thanks. Good to know.

  158. jared says:

    Is there another legally sanctioned organization besides the government that jails people that I’m unaware of?

  159. Houndentenor says:

    Clearly she was talking about her own vejayjay.

  160. Houndentenor says:

    It’s difficult for sociopaths like Coulter to understand that some people risk their lives in order to save others. The rest of them call such folks heroes. There is a touch of madness among the sort of people who run toward burning buildings to save people rather than away to save themselves but I wouldn’t want to live in a world without such madness.

  161. nicho says:

    And I think that someone is you. All the first amendment says is that the government can’t stop you from speaking. However, you certainly can be held accountable for what you say.

  162. olandp says:

    John, you presume that Miss Coulter would support someone working to help the poor, when she probably believes the poor are responsible for their own poverty. I have one question for Ann, are you still a virgin? She judges others who are not and are unmarried.

  163. Bill_Perdue says:

    You are confused. Hate speech is not free speech and it leads to harassment, discrimination and violence.

  164. Moderator3 says:

    No, but you may think it.

  165. Really, Ann? A “disease-ridden cesspool”?

    But, enough about your coochie. Let’s move on to discussing Africa.

  166. Dago T says:

    At least there looks to be a cure for ebola, Ann. What you got can only be cured by burning at the stake. Maybe bloodletting.

    BTW – does this website allow use of the word [sea – you – en – tea]?

  167. FLL says:

    Are you trying to assert that the human brain is incapable of critical thinking?

    Very amusing. As you can surely see, it’s not the human brain in general that is incapable of critical thinking, but rather specific commenters on Americablog. ;)

  168. jared says:

    I’m a little confused. Are you trying to assert that the human brain is incapable of critical thinking? Because that flies in the face of just about everything I’ve ever encountered in my life. And if you believe that only a subset of the population is capable of such a task, then can’t we choose as a society to promote those skills rather than resorting to jail (the crappiest of all solutions) to solve the problem.

  169. FLL says:

    The consequences of hate speech are different in different countries. Roberson, Warren, Lively and McClurkin are all American, so their hate speech is not illegal here, although it could be, for example, in Canada or Germany, depending on the circumstances.

  170. Butch1 says:

    You need to understand isolation technique. Ebola is not an airborne disease. It is only transmitted through handling bodily fluids without protection. Just walking into a room would not be a way of catching the disease unless you touched something that had contamination of bodily fluids on it and you were not protected with your own protective gowns, gloves, masks, etc. Then the chances of acquiring the disease would be greater.

  171. Butch1 says:

    Why do people care what this cretin thinks or says? She’s constantly looking for relevance by acting out to anyone who will give her a stage on which to perform her tired, puerile act of making fun of others who are most times brilliant as opposed to her insecure self.

  172. Bill_Perdue says:

    I understand the consequences of hate sppech. You don’t. Hate speech is not free speech.

  173. Dave of the Jungle says:

    Ann Coulter made a pathetic skank out of herself again. In other news, the sun came up again today.

  174. jared says:

    jail for speech?? seems like someone doesn’t understand the first amendment.

  175. Naja pallida says:

    Please do not insult fruit.

  176. dcinsider says:

    She is totally bananas.

  177. Bill_Perdue says:

    Racists, immigrant bashers, misogynists and homophobes should be heavily fined and jailed for hate speech. It leads directly and inexorably to harassment, discrimination and violence. That’s the case with the the hate speech of Pat Robertson, Obama buddy Rick Warren, Scott Lively and Obama supporter Donnie McClurkin.

  178. Colin says:

    With Ann Coulter , any insult , reference or piece of truth coming from and American who disagrees with her is a badge of honor. Her outlandish statements always garner press coverage which of course puts money in her pocket. She is in reality just another cowardly parasite milking the hateful rubes for as much as she can squeeze.

  179. Naja pallida says:

    Dr. Brantly was an evangelical Christian who proselytized in Africa. He just also happened to have medical expertise. He is part of a group called Samaritan’s Purse, which is run by Franklin Graham, one of Billy Graham’s children. Samaritan’s Purse has gotten themselves into hot water in several countries for their evangelical preaching, and generally racist beliefs. They’re a classic ‘must save the savages from themselves’ kind of group. In Liberia, they were fairly quick to evacuate the non-essential religious people when things took a turn for the worse, leaving only the medical staff. If they could completely separate their humanitarian aid from their religious nutbaggery, they’d be a great organization.

  180. nicho says:

    I will have to defer to Ann’s close familiarity with and expertise in cesspools.

  181. Badgerite says:

    She’s nice. (snark)

  182. FLL says:

    There’s really no lower form of charity than one which is only a pretense for proselytizing…

    Well said and very quotable, NP.

  183. Naja pallida says:

    There’s really no lower form of charity than one which is only a pretense for proselytizing, and Samaritan’s Purse, the organization he works for, has gotten themselves into trouble many times before by doing things like forcing people to attend prayer services before offering aid. In this particular case though, I doubt there was ever much opportunity to make Ebola patients stop and pray before getting treatment. It is a tense and dangerous situation, which anyone in their right mind would have sense enough to avoid – and nobody would think less of them for it, but he chose to do what he could help.

  184. FLL says:

    What about American evangelical Christians who proselytize in Africa? What is Ann Coulter’s opinion if one of them contracts Ebola? Are they as idiotic as American doctors who go to Africa, or does she make an exception for sexually repressed fundie Chistians who go to Africa to spread homophobia? I’ve always been allergic to double standards. Is Ann ready to reimburse me for the package of Claritin I’ll have to buy at the pharmacy. Achoo!

  185. AnitaMann says:

    Disease ridden cesspools > Ann Coulter

  186. JohninAwe says:

    The other pathetic part of Coulter’s disgusting statement is that many Tea Party Christians who adore her are probably now rethinking their “Mission Statement”.

  187. MJ says:

    And Kent Brantly MIGHT have good intentions, but I’m always suspicious of missionaries.

  188. MJ says:

    Okay…she wouldn’t walk into a room full of Ebola patients. But probably no one posting here would either.

  189. Houndentenor says:

    This is fundamentalist Christianity c. 2014.

  190. MJ says:

    How can she disappear when gay bloggers post about every statement she makes?

  191. Naja pallida says:

    Coulter, like most of her ilk, simply have no concept of charity or selflessness. Everything they do is for themselves, and only themselves. So when they see someone do something for another person, without asking for anything, or expecting anything in return, they are completely baffled. And when a Republican gets confused at the reasons for any occurrence, they don’t try to figure it out, they don’t try to learn, they don’t try to solve a problem, they just get angry and lash out.

  192. kingstonbears says:

    Just when we thought the bitch had disappeared……

  193. Indigo says:

    All that and then some!

    Meanwhile, I won’t hold my breath but your implied future essay defining “intersectionalistismyadayadacumbaya” will no doubt enchant many, trouble others, and trigger enough traffic to start a sub-blog. Go for it!

  194. douglas01 says:

    IMHO, there are not enough 4 letter expletives to describe this hate filled woman, and I use the term woman loosely in this case as I suspect she is a throwback to some subspecies.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS