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.
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.