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 ...
You're quite correct. I'll BBL, work to do now.
You want to have all the "dignity and class" of a passenger on the HMS Titanic. NO! It is NOT "dignity and class" to suffer the misuse of words to conform to some dim-witted social zeitgeist!
Strawman. "Extended vocabulary" does not imply you are less direct or indeed the number of words is increased to discuss the subject in question. It does mean that one has a better command of language.
I don't see what is gained by descending into the gutteral grunting that occurs over at DU. Firstly, they're more experienced at it. Secondly, we should have no aspirations to be like them in any way.
There now, I was just very insulting. The DU types reading it are likely throwing rotten fruit at their handlers. However, no group other than my intended target received a mark.
Ivan
It is time to start fighting back. When the DFL view keying cars, slashing tires, and such (even arson?) as valid forms of political discourse, the time for "civility" may well be over. Not take it as far as property damage (we are not quite at a full blown civil war yet, but it's going in that direction), but it is time to call the Democratic Party the Party of Terrorists and Traitors.
"If either one dropped the insults and name-calling then they would be failures because neither one is capable of serious discourse."
I'm on board with this comment as far as Maher, but I do think Coulter is more than capable of holding her own in any political debate. Maher's embarrassing appearance on O'Reilly the other night demonstrated that he is a political lightweight, who just happens to be full of hatred and has a certain facility with language that makes his hatred entertaining to listen to. Too bad for us, and the cause of common decency, that he's entertaining to listen to.
Ann, on the other hand, has a schtick that's effective in getting her attention, but it seems that she has a little too fine a grasp of media policies, the news cycles, demographics, and conservative reticence. Again, too bad for us.
Thank you, Don W.
It did end CPAC badly, we are in agreement there as well.
She is a responsible person. It's not an affront to her by asking her to be smarter about what she chooses going forward. She does work. People who do work make mistakes. This is all fine. All we ask is that she learns-- we ask her to choose wisely so as to pick a better topic to focus on.
Dean Barnett wrote a piece where he compared Reagan's 1981 CPAC address to hers. There's the lost opportunity. There's the distraction.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/31f23f90-d86f-483d-80eb-e89e788eccc9
I see, so you want to emulate the rhetoric, style, grace and charm that epitomises the people at DU? How very interesting.
Ivan
You've just perfectly exemplified in that post the politically correct modern way! A+ for use of passive-aggressive phrasing!
turn the other cheek when islamofascists separate your head from your body
smile demurely and grab your ankles when the socialists call america the world's most dangerous terrorist state
fuggetaboutit
i seek warriors that crack the skulls of attackers
You are so right. Even Democrats voted for Reagan because of the decent person he was.
IMO in the final analysis of this story, Bill M and Anne Coulter are craving attention.
Instead of calling a married man with children a Faggot, Anne could have reminded the public that Edwards is a LIBERAL, that he supports partial birth abortion, that he Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime, that he Voted NO on maintaining the ban on Military Base Abortions, and that he was Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
i want to emulate the style of a warrior
style and charm have little to do with fighting
Join the Army then.
style and charm have little to do with fighting
We're talking about a battle of ideas. You want to persuade people to your point of view. You're not going to achieve this if you sound like you have an impulse control problem.
Ivan
Her statement, in summary, was that it was socially inappropriate to use the word faggot. You seem to be agreeing with that statement, aren't you?
She did NOT call anyone a faggot. Learn to read.
reagan was a warrior:
"History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."
reagan understood what bush cannot - the domestic enemies have paid no price for their actions
only the coulter, limbaugh and few others have extracted payment-in-kind from the armed socialist thugs
Or she could have taken the opportunity to give her listeners something or someone positive to vote for, not to vote against. That is and always should be her choice. And with it she takes the consequences- sometimes good and sometimes bad.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -- PJ O'Rourke
Hardly. Part of sparring with the Left is not only finding ways to needle them but not to give them things to run screaming to the Media about. Ann's a big girl, she knows what's what - she made a gaffe.
Her statement, in summary, was that it was socially inappropriate to use the word faggot. You seem to be agreeing with that statement, aren't you?
It didn't achieve its purpose. It was a mistake. What is frightening is that not only are people defending her, which in and of itself is not a problem ("Give her a pass, we all make mistakes" would be fine) - it is the infantile desire to let fly with whatever foul names and language one wants to - which could be very damaging to conservatism and to its election prospects in 2008. You have a right to free speech, just like you have a right to own a gun. You don't use the right to own a gun to run around shooting people at random, you shouldn't use free speech to blow your own foot off and that of the people on your side.
Ivan
I agree with you. In my book, this name calling is not necessary, and is actually detrimental to the credibility of the name caller.
you seem to have an excess passivity problem
while i am sympathetic to your naivety, understand that you will never persuade, or teach a socialist, anything
you can ridicule them, intimidate them, disarm them, limit them, marginalize them
the lack of independent thought is the very definition of what makes them a socialist
So we have you on record saying that having and using an extended vocabulary is a bad thing. OK, Got it.
Based on that, I assume you really like rap music and Jerry Springer must be your favorite show. /s
Seriously, though, if you think it's good to get up in front of hundreds of professionals at a political convention and start name-calling, there isn't much I can really say to you, is there? This isn't about PC, it's about class and professionalism. She singled out John Edwards and inferred he was gay in a derogatory manner. That is past the bounds of dignified behavior and the more of this I see, the less I care about politics. These kinds of personal attacks do NOTHING to make this nation better, only worse.
Most of what you wrote was just another big ol' strawman. The usage of "bastard" has squat to do with this nor does homos stealing the word "gay".
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.