45
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − Line 81:
Line 80: + +
Talk:Essay:Conservapedias Law/1 (view source)
Revision as of 19:59, July 24, 2007
, 19:59, July 24, 2007no edit summary
==General comments==
==General comments==
I think that the point is largely being missed here. It simply cannot be argued that Edwards comes across in a somewhat effeminate fashion, from the quality of his voice to his obsession with his hair. I think that Coulter was making a perfectly valid accusation, and that it should be taken seriously. Many homosexuals do marry in order to retain their mainstream appeal while continuing to engage in horrid "extracurricular" activities. Maybe we should seriously consider that Edwards is a "fag." Frankly, that she would back down on this sort of hardhitting genius for which we all respect her is really one of the most dissapointing occurences I can recall in her public history.
I think that the point is largely being missed here. It simply cannot be argued that Edwards comes across in a somewhat effeminate fashion, from the quality of his voice to his obsession with his hair. I think that Coulter was making a perfectly valid accusation, and that it should be taken seriously. Many homosexuals do marry in order to retain their mainstream appeal while continuing to engage in horrid "extracurricular" activities. Maybe we should seriously consider that Edwards is a "fag." Frankly, that she would back down on this sort of hardhitting genius for which we all respect her is really one of the most dissapointing occurences I can recall in her public history.
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 11:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 11:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
How can a woman who is a self-proclaimed 'pot-stirrer' not have a section on controversy or criticism? I bet she would be upset if she saw that there is not a prominent list of liberal faggots that she's ticked off. [[User:RWest]] 15:58 23-7-2007
==Ann's next book==
==Ann's next book==