Posted on 03/09/2007 3:18:12 AM PST by ajolympian2004
Here is what has been said the past week or so that sparked argument: Bill Maher, on HBO, said a lot of lives would be saved if Vice President Cheney had died, and Ann Coulter, at a conservative political meeting, suggested John Edwards is a "faggot."
She was trying to be funny and get a laugh. He was trying to startle and get applause.
What followed was the predictable kabuki in which politically active groups and individuals feigned dismay as opposed to what many of them really felt, which was grim delight. Conservatives said they were chilled by Mr. Maher's comments, but I don't think they were. They were delighted he revealed what they believe is at the heart of modern liberalism, which is hate.
Liberals amused themselves making believe they were chilled by Ms. Coulter's remarks, but they were not. They were delighted she has revealed what they believe is at the heart of modern conservatism, which is hate.
The truth is many liberals were dismayed by Mr. Maher because he made them look bad, and many conservatives were mad at Ms. Coulter for the same reason.
I realized as I watched it all play out that there's a kind of simple way to know whether something you just heard is something that should not have been said. It is: Did it make you wince? When the Winceometer is triggered, it's an excellent indication that what you just heard is unfortunate and ought not to be repeated.
In both cases, Mr. Maher and Ms. Coulter, when I heard them, I winced. Did you? I thought so. In modern life we wince a lot. It's not the worst thing, but it's better when something makes you smile.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This is not to say that there was a halcyon day when elections were clean; of course not. However, do we see the quality of say, the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the present discourse? Are questions fundamental to the survival of the Republic being addressed by discussing Edwards' possible sexual preferences?
I won't answer that, but merely throw the questions out there.
Regards, Ivan
But why she did that rather than talk about the two Americas on John Edward's lot- that at least one America could live in his house, as Miss Marple points out?
Why throw out perfectly good opportunities and defend a choice that made her feel better, but effectively undermined her candidate?
The Left has been able to enact Speech Codes on our College Campuses across that Nation. And now they are doing the same thing in our Media, Business, and elsewhere. Call a Gay Man a Fag and if you want to work in the Media you must go into Rehab. Its crap. You cannot state the truth. If you are an Athlete and don't want to hit the showers with a Gay Team Mate and express that. Like Tim Hardaway you are now labelled a Homophobe. The Majority's preferences are now labelled as hate by a Minority, and the Left.
Ann Coulter was saying this. She was using one joke after another in her Speech. And the Media and the Left went bonkers. Screw them.
Does he not owe them an apology? Does he not owe them a refund?
Regards, Ivan
There's a good number of us who don't want to use their tactics. Maybe we want someone to uphold principles and communicate them effectively and persuasively.
Rick Moran, of RightWing Nuthouse wrote that his uncle said now he knew what the traditional Democrats went through in 1968 when the intolerant left took over.
You and Miss Marple have a valid point.
Why she went on that tangent rather than a focussed statement is known only to her. I agree that it was the wrong tactic, but the press and a lot of FReepers are making much ado about nothing.
As I alluded to earlier, it's all a distraction to keep us from thinking about and doing things that matter.
"We all know how ultra important it is to be perfectly PC at our mainstream Conservative political conventions."
You consider showing some dignity and class to be "perfectly PC"? I'm not sure you know what PC means. Please point to the time in our history when it was considered good and fine to infer that an opponent was a faggot in front of the media.
"That's not nice" to be motto. If we show them they will come they will stop it also, say good conservatives. "It could also prove to be effective law enforcement tactic against violent criminals," said one conservative pundit. [End ersatz news]
Fifty years ago no one would say that we'd be better off if Eisenhower died.
It took all the left's energy and concentration to kill off McCarthy, Chambers, and lesser known anti-communists.
Keep on truckling.
We cannot expect this standard if we are not exemplars of it ourselves.
Regards, Ivan
Are you saying that she was effective for the party and that CPAC was the forum to make that point?
If so, I disagree with you.
Why would this be the overarching issue? Sure there is a problem if Michael Richards can say bigoted things and go to rehab, but is this her party platform? I can think of bigger issues to deal with if she won't.
I agree with that sentiment as well. Nobody died or was killed in the end. Long term the only 'hangover' item is that the liberal media has a sound bite they can hammer conservatives over the head with. Does the matter and will anyone care???
Precisely.
Bit she didn't have to mention her inference.
And if she had kept her inference to herself, or even kept her implication to "I can't talk about John Edwards without being sent to rehab" it would have been bulletproof
But no, she had to play to the fratboy crowd
A very minute difference yes
So minute it would only matter to a wussy girlie-man.
Again: Infer=| imply
Oh that's not true at all! It is, by one simple example, shown false.
When we started using the "extended vocabulary" expression "child born out of wedlock" and later "single mom" instead the older clear and well-understood terms of criminal law "bastard" and "bastardry" was also when we lost all the common social restraints against such the practice of bastardry and since then have seen an explosion of fatherless children with mothers and children both impoverished for lack of marriage and man.
So too it is with the "polite" modern term "gay"! Instead of the derogatory "fag" we use a term that is at least temporarily polite. What happens as result? The next generation suffers the lack of a clear verbal moral compass as to homosexuality.
Words are tools. Tools have to be maintained.
Would you blunt all knives to make them safe?
The cook and carver will both call you fool for so doing, for a dulled knife is not only inefficient, it is dangerous.
"And it is VERY important for YOU to be SO MAD at Ann Coulter! Very very!"
For what it's worth, I'm not "mad" at Ann Coulter. I generally like her wit and sharp tongue. There is a time and place for that. I just think she was wrong on this one for the reasons I stated.
Any other stories about CPAC other than the Coulter one. Really have heard any. Shameful!
marquess of queensbury rules in guerrila warfare?
how civil of you!
give the chaps a sporting chance!
tally-ho!
perfect!
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.