Posted on 03/04/2007 8:28:45 AM PST by ajolympian2004
Enter Ann Coulter.
Her "faggot" joke was not just a distraction from all the good that was highlighted and represented at the conference. It was the equivalent of a rhetorical fragging--an intentionally-tossed verbal grenade that exploded in her own fellow ideological soldiers' tent.
There are countless conservatives who bring their children to CPAC. It's a family-friendly event. I brought mine last year and the year before. I met several parents with their kids there this year. We expect CPAC to be a place where conservative role models speak with clarity, passion, and integrity. There are enough spewers of mindless filth, vulgarity, and hatred on TV, at the movies, and in the public schools. We don't expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation's preeminent conservative gathering.
I was in the back of the ballroom and did not see any children in the audience during Coulter's speech. But what if there had been?
Would you want your children hearing the word "faggot" spoken in such a casual and senseless manner? Would you like your first-grader or three-year-old running around the halls of CPAC singing "faggot, faggot, faggot?" Not me. Not anymore than I'd like my toddler singing "gook, gook, gook" or "sambo, sambo, sambo"--favored epithets hurled at conservative minorities by leftist haters groping around in their empty intellectual quivers. There were hundreds of young conservative college students in the ballroom. Would you be proud of your college-age daughter spewing such epithets in her campus debates with leftists?
With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees. At a reception for college students held by the Young America's Foundation, I lambasted the substitution of stupid slurs for persuasion-- be it "faggot" from a conservative or "gook" from a liberal--and urged the young people there to conduct themselves at all times with dignity in their ideological battles on and off campus.
I made something else explicitly clear: Not all of us treat the communication of conservative ideals and ideas as 24/7 performance art. You can and should use humor to convey your message. You can enlighten and entertain--without becoming a tired old schtick. You can joke without becoming the joke.
---
The rest of her coverage, great pics from the event and photo album link here -
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006981.htm
You are correct as far as your point goes but it is still almost a year until the first primary. The candidates still have plenty of events that they can attend without inviting Ann Coulter to make their views known. I don't much care about candidates at this very early point in time. There is still a lot of time for events to change things. I am interested in the "acceptable speech" issue and how conservatives treat their own when they say something controversial. I find it hard to believe that this episode will be a big issue to a sizeable portion of the electorate in the presidential race a year from now. BTW, I also don't think that most of the candidates who have already declared are doing much to help the party's chances of winning elections.
When Gwen Ifill asked a pressing question about AIDS during the vice-presidential debate, both candidates were utterly lost. "I want to talk to you about AIDS, and not about AIDS in China or Africa, but AIDS right here in this country, where black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of the disease than their counterparts," said Ifill. "What should the government's role be in helping to end the growth of this epidemic?"
Ummmm, free condoms?
Since you can't cite any conservatives "who praise Malkin for slamming the left for cheap tactics are so very quick to turn on her for calling out [Coulter]," you avoid the question with this mom-and-apple-pie-Malkin b.s.
"You are also adding your own spin to what YOU think she means. Fine, that's your perogative but just admit that you are intepreting what she said."
"I would comment on John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’" Please, tell me how her words do not clearly state exactly what I said, which is that she knew she'd be crucified for calling Edwards a faggot by the PC police if she did do so (she implied, of course, that she would have to). Of course, she would hardly be surprised to find some of y'all PC wanna-bes hiding in the FR woodpile. And yes, FR has its own verboten vocabulary. I don't deny that. But calling a faggot a faggot seems hardly out of line.
Well Ann, you did it again. You got over 340 responses. Good job.
Brilliance...pure and simple brilliance.
RINOs and Rats drink the same Kool-Aid.
Michelle has been savaged by liberals on many occasions. She should know better. Eventually they will come for her. I don't agree with Ann using that forum for what she said. But I support her right to do it. This is war.
And I never miss the opportunity to attack the fraud and hypocrisy of the political correctness religion. So go Annie go.
Maybe that is what you want.
Very informative. Do you have anything that backs up your assertion that "the #1 aids carriers are straight young black women"? I couldn't find anything in either piece that said quite that. You're obviously familiar with the stories, so maybe you could help me out.
Also, is there any group that suffers a more disproportionate rate of AIDS cases than gay men? A communicable disease that's been around for 25 years is bound to make its way into then population. Gay men account for about 2% of it, so it would logically follow that in raw numbers, there would be a greater number of cases within the much larger groups at some point. But as a percentage within those groups, does anyone come close to having a higher rate of AIDS cases than gay men?
How exactly do the faggots win? I have yet to see a post rooting for the fags!
Both of 'em are valuable to us, I hope they don't damage each other. I am disappointed that MM couldn't resist the urge to pile on.
You think leftists would invite Malkin to their cocktail parties? That's absurd!
Check African stats. Slim's disease.
Calling FReepers that... wouldn't expect anything different from you and your kind.
Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt and others were EXACTLY CORRECT in their comments on what Ann Coulter did at CPAC and you can't handle the truth.
Not to mention the rending of garments etc, etc, .... If this is such a church-like venue, the organizers are clueless for inviting Coulter. And if they didn't know what she does, 'clueless' is a very kind charaterization.
She was a draw. She'll almost certainly be a draw for CPAC again next year.
Their counterparts where? In Africa? In China? In China AND Africa?
If anyone is suggesting that black America women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of AIDS than there counterparts in Africa, I'm going to go way out on a limb and call bullsh*t. If it's true at all, it's only because so many women in Africa never live to see the age of 25.
This reeks of some United Nations cooked-books report.
|
I believe they mean here in the US, but I'm not sure. Perhaps because they don't go to the doctors as often? Again, I'm not sure, just guessing. Aids would not be such an epidemic if people would just stop having casual sex. In that 1st story, those women admitted to having sex with this man WITHOUT a condom. In the 2nd story, the woman asks what the government is going to do? (see my previous post). Unless she will allow the government to tie her legs together, I don't think there's much they can do for her.
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.