Blogosphere Is Quick to Criticize Ann Coulter (Use of a Certain 'F' Word at CPAC)

Ann Coulter just finished her riff on Al Gore, tossed out some cute jokes ("You can understand why Hollywood is concerned about global warming. You know what heat does to plastic."), and ended with a cheap one-liner about John Edwards being a "faggot." (Paraphrasing) She said she would refrain from commenting on Edwards because "if you say faggot, you have to go to rehab."

I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying.

Last year it was “raghead.” This year it’s calling John Edwards a “faggot.” Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come.

Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann.

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

Ann Coulter can be an entertaining and incisive wit. Unfortunately, she can also be a loose cannon, and CPAC might want to consider that the next time around.

You shouldn't have to go to psych eval for using it, but it's a nasty word. Just don't.

Ann Coulter almost made it through her CPAC speech without looking like a complete buffoon. She wasn’t funny, she rarely is, but she’s an attention whore. Near the end of her speech she said she wouldn’t talk about John Edwards because ” you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’” She’s now on non-speaking terms with any gay and lesbian friends.

Here, in part, is what I wrote on another thread about it (the over-sensitiveness of oh so many, even here at FR):

She has not had a meltdown on TV like Susan Estrich or Lawrence O'Donnell, who shouted down John O'Neill prior to the '04 election.

She has not called the Bush administration a bunch of "liars" and "murderers" like Joy Behar did recently.

She has not foamed at the mouth and yelled that Bush "betrayed his country" like that buffoon Al Gore did at a MoveOn event.

She has not stated that Republicans like to "hide the salami" like Howard Dean did on Chrissy Matthews show.

She did not smear our volunteer Army with a sneer, declaring them to be too stupid not to end up in Iraq like Effin' did in October of last year.

She did not refer to the Alito nomination for SCOTUS as "sloppy seconds" as did a national television news reporter did.

She did not drive Alito's wife to tears unlike the 'Rats on the Senate Juidiciary Committee did.

Politics ain't beanbag. I agree with her Jersey Girls remark in "Godless" and don't think her remark about the Breck Girl deserves all this calumny.

Every time I think Ann has gone too far, such as this time, I study the reaction, and I think she did the right thing. To call Edwards a "fagot" means he is effeminate. Well, doh! I think we all agree about that. Just check out the You Tube video of him combing his hair plus the pictures in this thread of him and his man, John Kerry, embracing affectionately.

Ironically, this slam was attacked as "anti-gay, homophobic", NOT for the insult to Edwards. I'd say THIS indicates the charge was true, or tacitly accepted, but the WAY she insulted Edwards was unacceptable. Using a derogatory term for homosexuals is unacceptable--politically incorrect.

You need to read her book "How to Talk to a Liberal, if you must". In there she describes exactly why she talks provocatively. It's even in the first chapter. She does that, because they don't listen to logic. She says, unless you leave a liberal spluttering in apoplexy, you're not getting through. I thought that was over the top--then.

Then there was the uproar over the "Jersey girls" who were "enjoying their husbands' deaths". Mark Steyn paid her the ultimate compliment--he said he pointed this out cleverly in a column in 2002--but no one paid attention. Now everyone knows about the "Jersey girls" and how they made money off their husbands death.

I love logic. I love reasonable arguments. But it doesn't always work, and it doesn't always convince people.

So, the NAZIs (National Socialists) thought the homosexuals were perverts... So?

No. No in two ways. First of all, I wasn't talking about the Nazi's view of perversion. I was saying that Shirer's landmark book used these words almost interchangeably --- homosexual/pervert and homosexuality/perversion. Sometimes you'd see one word used, and sometimes the other. What's more, Shirer's choice of words back then (late 50s, 1960) was not at all unusual. I was pointing this out to remark on just how low our culture has sunk since those days, with regard to what is considered normal and what is not. Nowadays, anyone questioning the homosexual agenda is considered the freak, on the fringes of society, the true pervert. After enough years of solid wall-to-wall propaganda, including thousands of movie scenes and tens of thousands of TV scenes, a message that was initially considered to be laughably wrong by 95% of Americans, is now considered unquestionably true.

Secondly, you brought up the topic of Nazi's and homosexuals with, "the NAZIs thought the homosexuals were perverts". No. That's only a tiny part of the story. The only thing concerning Nazi history that gay agenda pushers want you to hear about nowadays is that at some point in time, the Nazi's persecuted homosexuals. But as Paul Harvey is famous for saying, you don't know "The Rest Of The Story".

It was primarily violent street gangs led by homosexuals who put Hitler into power. Many of Hitler's top aides were homosexual, or involved with other sexual perversions. (Eg, Hitler himself, while middle aged, slept with a teenage first cousin of his, until she commit suicide). Shortly after Hitler got the Chancellorship - though still short of total dictatorial power - his top deputy, Ernst Rohm - the homosexual-in-chief of the Brownshirts ("SA" as opposed to "SS"), made the fatal mistake of publicly bragging that the German Army would be disbanded and replaced with a new type of armed forces with his Brownshirts at the core of it. This was anathema to top German generals. Hitler was worried, knowing that at that point in time the Army was the only force left in Germany strong enough to oust him.

So he made a Machiavellian deal with the army. For years, certain top Nazi sympathizers had complained to Hitler of the sexual behaviors of other top Nazis, and Hitler had always dismissed their complaints with, "I don't care what they do in their sexual lives as long as they do their jobs well for the party". But now, to appease the army, he suddenly professed to be shocked, shocked at the awful behavior of the entire Brownshirt organization. So in one night he had murdered all of the SA leadership. The German Army was grateful, and as their part of the deal they required each and every officer to swear personal allegiance to Hitler himself (rather than to the government, as was previously done). Since Oaths and Honor and Following Orders were a really big deal to Germans back then, this was a major political milestone for Hitler.

And of course after that, the SS Blackshirts methodically wiped out any SA Brownshirts who they felt might be a threat to them. The army realized too late what an awful deal they had made, after the SS replaced the SA as Hitler's personal enforcers. That's when homosexuals started ending up in the death camps in large numbers, wearing the pink triangles in some cases. That very end part of the story is the only one the PC historians will tell you about today.

Another thing they don't point out to you is this: If it's really true that homosexual death camp prisoners were routinely raped, just stop and think a minute. Ask yourself, hmm..... what does that tell me about (at least some of) the death camp guards?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.