(Click on photo to play.)
Posted on 03/04/2007 12:56:27 PM PST by Sam Hill
Come along with me if you will, to a time long ago. Well, actually just a few months ago. But apparently, it was seemingly a more innocent age:
(Click on photo to play.)
On the July 27, 2006 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Ann Coulter, "How do you know that [former President] Bill Clinton is gay?" -- referring to her comment the night before on CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch that Clinton "show[s] some level of latent homosexuality."
Coulter responded, "I don't know if he's gay. But [former Vice President] Al Gore -- total fag."
She went on to defend her theory about Clinton's sexuality by stating that "everyone has always known, widely promiscuous heterosexual men have, as I say, a whiff of the bathhouse about them."
Coulter claimed she was "just kidding" about Gore, but said of her theory about Clinton, "It's not only not a joke, it's not even surprising."
As the world now knows, Ann Coulter made a similar joke at CPAC a couple of days ago. But this time our watchdog media were looking for dirt from CPAC, so they latched upon her joke, and pretended she was calling Edwards a faggot -- and of course indulging in hate speech.
But where was their outrage last July?
Where was outrage here at Free Republic?
(I believe some of the members of the audience were even Freepers.)
How time flies.
Take yourself elsewhere...
Are you the self-appointed PC gestapo???
You could add me to that list. I keep getting this picture of Ann dressed up like a female John Wayne, as the new sheriff of a town beseiged by scum. Shes saddling up her horse and turns around to the towns folk and says " you all have had it, right? You are tired of the scum sucking varmints keeping you holed up? Saddle up. We are going to chase them down". Heh heh....makes me laugh. You can tell I watched a cowboy flick this weekend.
She definitly has the guts. I get a real kick out of her. It is a very nice thing to be unafraid to speak out. She has created that for herself.
Sheriff Ann...I like that! LOL
You've been added to the Ann list.
"While I enjoy Ann's comments, I have to say that, when someone becomes overly interested, in the sexuality of a distant person, then I, become concerned about the sexuality of the person voicing the comments..."
I'm not sure who you are talking about here? Perhaps you are saying that Coulter was too interested in the "sexuality" of Bill Clinton?
If that's your point, then Coulter had a lot of company around here.
Your bitching is getting really tiresome.
She even called Bubba a 'latent homosexual'. It took the left a little while to devise a plan to make something out of nothing.
When a good lookin babe calls a guy a faggot is it like a drill sergant calling a recruit a turd. You got to take it with a grain of salt and not get your hairdo in a bunch.
You're wrong. It's both witty and humorous.... the guy's a faggot.
Good post, BillyBoy. It's gotten so bad around here that if you disagree with Ann Coulter calling someone a 'faggot' from the podium of a GOP convention you're a spineless liberal troll who has no place here.
Even a FReeper of 7 years like myself. Unreal.
Just the other day, many of us were proud that a recent study showed that most conservative sites WERE conservative in their language.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794510/posts
I think it has something to do with how we were raised. Calling people names like Kike, Nigger and Faggot wasn't allowed around our home, much less encouraged in our speech in public.
I don't understand all this defense of the indefensible.
Bump to all that.
Algore and Edwards. Now there's a couple a fag boys. Liars too! Ahhhh, I feel better.
Respectfully, please re-read the title of this thread. If as you state in your post this comment is indefensible "where was the outrage, when Coulter call Gore a "f.." on national TV--certainly a larger audience than CPAC. While its certainly acceptable to debate the vulgarity of the term, ceding the high ground to dishonest moralists who will allow calling for the murder of our President and VP, while displaying high moral dudgeon about what is simply a barnyard epithet (one that AC had used before) strikes me as intellectully dishonest.
This charge has already been made in this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1795289/posts
Under a link to Hannity's home page: [quoting from the post]
"Sean Hannity announcement
Sean Hannity announcement at the end of Hanity's America: Coulter on Hannity & Colmes Monday night, March 5th.
If Ann makes any comment other than a sincere apology she will be making a fool of herself trying to defend the indefensible."
Hannity did not make this announcement. The poster here admits as much after several requests for a verifiable link of Hannity's statement in post 167.
This idea that AC's comments are 'indefensible' is irrational cant. And while I'm certainly an AC fan; this characterization of the poster's words as Hannity's show the level of mendacity the AC poster will stoop to make their "indefensible" point.
The poster I'm referring to in the above post is pinged here as a courtesy.
Do you want the whole list? (half kidding)
Seriously. I have no problem at all with knocking the pegs out from under wingnuts, ego maniacs, demagogues, pandering populists, rabble rousers, intellectually dishonest pundits, etc.
Just because there's a shameless double standard which often protects extremists and nuts on the left from marginalization and public rebuke (the anachronistic but still effective "red baiting" taboo) doesn't mean that we shouldn't police our own ranks and demand higher standards of those that deserve our support as conservatives.
I happen to believe that one of the reasons conservatism has thrived is because we've done this in the past. I don't think it's a coincidence, for instance, that the conservative movement started to take off in the late 60's after Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater and others decided to disassociate themselves from and marginalize the previously influential John Bircher wingnuts.
No, I don't think Coulter is anywhere near as extreme as the Birchers, but she is rude, unconvincing to anyone not already convinced, intellectually dishonest and often false or slovenly in her research. At best she's serviceable as a kind of rodeo clown (irritating leftists and making them charge in the wrong direction).
Exactly. You have to hear the remarks in context, and you have to see Ann's face as she delivers her monologue. It was not a direct insult either to John Edwards, or to the faggots of America (which there seem to be many of, right here on FR).
It was a smackdown on political correctness, and on the infringement of First Amendment rights in a victim culture, where the supposedly victimized can force the utterer to be sent to a re-indoctrination facility. As used to be protocol in the Soviet Union (see Solzhenitsyn) and in Red China.
What is it--three or four days now? And the bright lights at FR STILL DON'T GET IT!
That was below the belt--waaaay below.
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.