style and charm have little to do with fighting Just be careful of heavy machinery
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 don't know me very well.
while i am sympathetic to your naivety, understand that you will never persuade, or teach a socialist, anything
I'm not interested in persuading them. It's the sliver of undecided people who decide, each and every election, who actually is going to triumph that matters.
you can ridicule them, intimidate them, disarm them, limit them, marginalize them
That's not what you have been defending - this beacon of thought may not have penetrated the murk around your point of view, but one is not effective if one abandons intelligent argument and discourse for mere name calling. Reagan, as you pointed out, was a warrior - but he never descending into calling Tip O'Neill a "faggot".
the lack of independent thought is the very definition of what makes them a socialist
If you spend more time learning to actually punctuate your sentences, capitalise the beginnings of appropriate words and actually had something to say other than your own gut feelings and expressions of your desire to fling mud about, I might take your opinion more seriously. At this point, I'm not in a position to do so.
Ivan
Ivan, was it really a mistake. Ann, changed the focus to edwards forced him to defend himself. So far he's asked for money and feigned a fake punch at her.
All the while his personal extravagance and calls for the rest of us to live more frugally ( through taxation ) have been brought out.
Shes not the candidate she doesn't work for a candidate and yet shes changed the discourse of the campaigned and placed the idea of a character flaw on Edwards. We never had the gay vote or the gay supporters vote, but now some of those union guys are questioning Edwards?
What do you think?
style and charm have little to do with fighting Just be careful of heavy machinery
Maybe not, but you can take their arguments away. And the independents. Why throw away perfectly good opportunities for a cheap laugh?
I've had numerous occasions in which I undermined a lib's position to the point that he or she had to concede. It doesn't make this person less liberal, but it does make his or her arguments less potent to those who aren't liberal but are tired of the cranking.
Isn't that the goal-- to make the case to vote for the defense of liberty and personal responsibility?
Without the slams and insults and snide remarks? I've yet to see her do it. It's her act. It's what made her famous and rich and she knows better than to drop it. Who'd take her seriously any other way?
Ann, accidentally, injected life into something which should have fallen over and died. This may be bad for us, as Edwards' withdrawal could have prompted Gore to get into the race, which would make the campaign very bloody and messy indeed on the Democrat side.
I think it was a genuine error on her part. I don't hold that against her. In fact, I am less worried about her and what she does than those who think it's about time to start using expletives to hit the liberals with, and in the process, define conservatism down.
Regards, Ivan
Peggy Noonan suffers from the same inside the beltway disease as the rest of the elitists.
She no longer "gets it".
These are not the genteel days when Reagan was our only voice against the MSM.
Noonan is just being a useful idiot. She is only assisting the left in their ratchet effect. She does not understand how to fight. It seems she has the intelectual equivalent of the "deer look" when confronted with the headlights of truth.
The old bat needs to keep her sermons on topics that have some relevance. I see this as an attempt for Noonan to cash in on a little controversy to get a few readers.
The immense egos (and small intellects) of the pompous twits on the left need to be deflated every now and then by any means available, and Edwards' blow dry hair do look is as good a lever as anything else. How many leftist comentators made fun of Tammy Faye Baker's makeup?
Our mistake is over reacting and carrying on about it too long. They really must enjoy the way we tear into our own. A simple hand slap could be just enough punishment.
Day after day of constant prattle over this one incident is abnormal.
If people wish to invoke Reagan, they need to remember that he was savaged by the left for his name calling when he branded the Soviet Union as the "evil empire". That was not considered nice and polite.
Enough is enough Ms. Noonan
daring to challenge political correctness and the socialist opposition is a two-fer in my opinion
as for debate with socialists, you've already lost when you expect them to be rational, truthful, reasonable and articulate - you cannot be civil with animals
as for the 'independents', the lack of effective rebuttal of the outrageous claims of the left is exactly why the gop was massacred last time out
it was not the incivility of the right, it was the lack of fight
i agree that the only suasion is humiliating public skewering of socialists
it is like an exorcism - they emerge nearly comatose, confused, but tend not to stray into the abyss any longer, and at least for a while, are impotent as opposition
Well said.
rachel was a member of the international solidarity movement
not much movement in rachel lately
All of the criticism of Coulter misses the mark. She made what at best can be claimed as an inferential remark about Edwards. She used the word faggot specifically to throw gasoline on the bonfires of the politically correct. Her thinly veiled complaint was over the moralistic approach to words that demands language be filtered by liberal sentiment. Of course explaining this is too deep for sensitive liberals who have gone from thin skinned to no skinned. There ought to be a celebration of bris for membership in this club.
I fear we are in a battle of wits with some unarmed opponents.
Jerry Springer style politics. Nice. :)
Serious journalists are Engineering, Medical, or Legal dropouts..
I'm glad Ann called him that. He deserves it; it looks good on him. I am sick of cleaning it up for publication. Good for Ann.
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.