Shame On Conservatives (for not supporting Coulter)

RightBias News ^ | 3-9-07 | Nancy Morgan

[nancyvideo]

One of the major differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are much more susceptible to group think. Most on the left are content to accept the prevailing leftist talking points as their own without questioning any of the intellectual underpinnings of said argument. (Think global warming..)

Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to rely on the substance and facts of a debate instead of drawing their conclusions based on 'consensus' and 'feelings'. At least that used to be so.

Enter Ann Coulter.

[AFPhys]

YOU CLEARLY didn't hear or read what Ann said.

I completely agree with WHAT SHE SAID.

I challenge you to look it up.

[Artemis Webb]

Who "follows" her? Quite a few on FR follow her! Just like Clinton had followers and Gore has followers. There are people, that if you sent them a video of Bill Clinton sodomizing a dog, they would say it was the dog's fault.

By the same token there are those here on FR who defend Ann Coulter regardless of her lapse in judgment.

[LucyJo]

On the other hand, would the press have given the conference more than a sound bite if she didn't say this?

I think you've answered your own question.
My regret is that those on 'our side' didn't take the opportunity provided by this manufactured 'kerfuffle' to do exactly what the left ALWAYS does - focus on what advances your own political ideology rather than accepting the premise and focus which advances that of your opponent.

It seems the right was so rattled by Ann's use of the word faggot, that they failed to recognize the context in which it was used - joining the left in falsely accusing her of calling Edwards a faggot. And, that condemnation of Ann is where they stopped - to their own detriment, and to the delight of the left.

There was an opportunity to take the true moral high ground instead of jumping astride the PC pony so cleverly disguised as a moral high horse by leftist indoctrinization. The right could have acknowledged the lack of tact in the remark, if they felt the need to do so; but, they should have put the focus on Ann's point where it belonged, imo. They decided, for whatever reasons, to play by the left's rules and ended up ceding the whole argument to them. That's no different, imo, than what the Republicans in D.C. did to Tom Delay. The left smells Ann's blood in the water and they are going to try to weaken the right by destroying Ann. I hope 'our side' cares enough to do the RIGHT thing.

[O6ret]

I am far from confused.

But if you cannot distinguish the few from NO (whose actions said more about themselves than it did about their profession) from the hundreds of thousands of other uniformed heroes who proudly and bravely serve every day it is you who are confused.

The real heroes in this coiuntry are the men and women who keep you safe and let you sleep soundly at night. The ones that answer your 911 calls. Those who climb into burning buildings to save people they don't know. Agents who patrol our borders. Young sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines and coasties who walk the talk and leave loved ones behind to serve in a distant land.

[Almondjoy]

Here here.. well said.

[BlackElk]

The "Jersey girls" are a group of anti-American leftist feminazi Demonrat operatives. The mere fact that their husbands went down on 9/11 conferred upon them no special wisdom whatsoever. Ann's attacks on their playing the special pleader card as deprived widows in the well-worn Demonrat path of "Listen to me. I am a victim. Re-order your entire society as Hildebeast demands! How dare you even think of disagreeing with a victim! STFU."

You want to be cowed by those despicable Jersey cows??? Have a party but don't call your spinelessness conservative (as in "our conservative movement"). Nothing you are involved with qualifies as conservative much less as OUR conservative movement. You are even suggesting that the fact that she did not have a husband much less one who died that day disqualifies her from the argument. How very ultraPC!!!

Howard Dean, is that you????

[BlackElk]

And then I took a look at your homepage, newbie. You would be wiser to take your own advice and listen rather than post.

[BlackElk]

The distinction is that the Dixie Chicks are anti-American trash and Annie is one of us and a patriot.

[BlackElk]

Because unlike paleoPaul, Annie is a patriot. Because Annie is right. Those are two reasons.

[LiteKeeper]

Exactly

[Texas_shutterbug]

She said she couldn't call him a faggot because of political correctness. I paraphrase, of course.

That's like saying, "I would tell you you're fat, but I'm too nice."

The slur came out of her lips, despite her little addendum.

And by the way, I'm against gay marriage, and very conservative on the topic. I'm just not a fan of Ann creating so much thunder when we need to be talking about real issues. She's getting very, very old and boorish.

[BlackElk]

Annie called them what they are and were. She neglected to add anti-American which also applies in spades. Left wingers either get respect the old-fashioned way (by earning it which the Jersey Girls did not) or they deserve none at all.

You are in the wrong place, YOUR cause is found at DU and at Daily Kos or at Huffington's site.

If you respect the Jersey girls, you might also try Demonratic websites or Al Jazeera.

[Oztrich Boy]

One of the major differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are much more susceptible to group think.....

The right should be standing by Coulter.

So Group Think good then?

Man has only one right: to do whatever the hell he wants. And with that right comes Man's one responsibility: to accept the consequences ... -PJ O'Rourke

[BlackElk]

If Ann dated Guccione, maybe she was trying to help him against Playboy in the circulation wars.

[BlackElk]

Edwards is a public figure. After the SCOTUS decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan in the mid-60s, libel and slander law are dead in America in discourse as to public figures. His family would have no rights that he does not enjoy since the comment was made strictly as to him. NYT vs. Sullivan purports to leave an exception when "actual malice" is proven but few indeed are the cases in which it is ever proven.

[BlackElk]

Way to go!

[jonrick46]

I am taking names and checking them twice.

[BlackElk]

When did the son die?

Does the son's death give Edwards a limited free pass (of what duration)?, a permanent free pass? Even when he chooses to run for president?

If he is not ready for rough and tumble, he is not ready to be POTUS. What if Osama bin Laden or some other Muhammed el Kaboomski were to make fun of Edwards' dead son?

Also, it used to be that families in mourning stayed home minding their own business and avoiding public rowdiness while mourning. Running for POTUS makes it a little strange for a fellow to be attacking other candidates and our president and then pleading for everyone to refrain from attacking the grieving him. If he did not run, he would soon be back in deserved obscurity.

[BlackElk]

You got your talking points wrong. It cannot be the dog's fault when everything bad is Bush's fault. Of course, Demonrats view such behavior as socially responsible or good so, maybe, they don't blame Dubya.

Ann is defended here because she is well worth defending, not only from Demonrats but from the hankie up the sleeve, manners at all costs, political "surrender monkey" "conservatives" who are more worried about being disliked by leftists than they are by the destruction of our nation and our civilization.

[BlackElk]

Is someone keeping you from addressing "real issues?" Has someone hijacked your keyboard? Feel free to start addrssing real issues whenever you are bored with the manners baloney.