Posted on 03/09/2007 11:12:02 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightbias.com ...
LOL - the country is made up of more than just moonbats on the left and the right. If you think that attacking gays and calling people "faggots" is a winning issue then have at it - enjoy minority status for the rest of your life. The "God Hates Fags" group is so popular.
Actually this might be a good thing for the country. Hopefully this will hasten the realignment of the parties and fiscal conservatives of both parties can form a new party and leave the GOP and Democratic party can keep it's moonbats.
"People are just personally criticizing her personal decision to use such language, that's all."
No, that's not all.
Questioning her decision to use such language implicitly accepts that there is something *wrong* with using such language.
There is nothing wrong with using such language.
People who think there is something wrong with using such language are godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing Communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko limp-wristed, one-worlder gun-fearing pansy-assed chicken choking globalist metrosexual twinkie-addled Subaru driving Dixie Chicks-admiring Gerald Ford-resembling John McCain-channeling Republican in Name Only conservative in no way whatsoever nitwit neurotic vegan weenie perverts.
That's all nice, but it still has nothing to do with this being a first amendment issue.
"These days faggot means homosexual."
You are wrong. It *can* mean that you are saying that a man suffers from same-sex attraction disorder, or it can mean that he is effiminate and resembles a SSAD victim.
"I am happy to agree to disagree, but I refuse to argue with someone who makes unfounded, libelous accusations. Lies don't belong in debates."
You are making unfounded, libelous accusations by calling Annie arrogant, and saying that she insults candidates only for the purpose of drawing attention to herself.
I won't accuse you of lying, because if a person believes what he says to be true he's not lying, even if what he says is not true.
"I simply don't think you win votes by"
And once again, you are wrong. Today's mainstream demonrats belong to what was called "the lunatic fringe" when JFK was elected. Over the ensuing decades, the lunatic fringe has grown in influence to the point that they can win about half the popular vote (less fraud, of course). They did that by employing the tactics that you think don't work--and worse.
The demonrats act the way they do because those are successful strategies over the long term. Republicans can prattle about "civility" all they want; demonrats are playing hardball, and playing to win.
William Ralph Inge D.D. (1860-1951) said, “It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion.”
It can also be said that “It is useless for decent people to pass resolutions in favor of civility while demonrat scum remain of a different opinion.”
"I'm extremely conservative."
Still, you need to read the left's treatises on winning. You don't seem to understand the prosecution of the battle over vocabulary.
"That's all nice, but it still has nothing to do with this being a first amendment issue."
What position, exactly, are you arguing?
I was responding to a post that said this was a first amendment issue. It clearly isn't, as nobody has challenged Coulter's legal right to say whatever she pleases.
"nobody has challenged Coulter's legal right to say whatever she pleases"
I think there's something you might not be looking at.
The left are trying to create a social climate that will both prevent people from speaking their minds by intimidating them, and groom the public to accept legal curtailment of our First Amendment rights.
Wherever the left is at work, our Constitution is under attack, even if they are yet one step away from legal challenges.
That's all true, but this still isn't a first amendment issue, as nobody challenged her legal rights, only the nature of her comments.
"If you think that attacking gays and calling people "faggots" is a winning issue then have at it - enjoy minority status for the rest of your life. The "God Hates Fags" group is so popular."
The forced endorsement of sexual disorder could be the thing that brings Western Civilization down. You don't seem to understand how important this issue is to our very survival.
I also don't believe "we" have to make unfounded accusations with our "words." There's plenty of dirt on a guy like Edwards without having to stoop to that.
And you know, if I thought someone had a same sex attraction but wasn't acting on it, I might actually have compassion on that issue - I wouldn't call him a faggot. Your attempts to "explain" Ann's remark is pathetic. So tha's a good reason to call someone a faggot? geesh And since we don't know have one iota of proof that John Edwards is a practicing homosexual, it's just a damn lie! That kind of joke is sick, but Ann knew what she was doing. She's not a stupid fool, even if I do think she's arrogant.
Oh, and if you don't see the difference between calling someone arrogant and calling someone a faggot, you need to think about it.
Well I'm not obsessed with homosexuals so I doubt we are in agreement with that. Do you really think that the "God Hates Fags" group is something conservatives should emulate?
Reagan rid himself promptly of all of the perps and never had that sort of problem in his governments again. Reagan's words (for those who regard our best man and best president as a wimp) were roughly: "Before Drew Pearson takes up his tripewriter again or a grease pencil to scrawl his obscenites on an outhouse wall which is the only place they might belong, he should explain the details of his own arrest on morals charges in St. Louis in 1918" (or 1919).
---<>---<>---<>---<>---<>---
GREAT quote. Also, great explanation of the true meaning of Ann's wonderful screed and implication, her "schoolyard taunt" of sKEdwards, and your personal observation (and mine, and Ann's) that the best weapon we have against the libidiots is to make fun of them.
Did you actually watch or listen to Ann?
I suspect not, or you would probably be cheering her on.
If you think that the well-being of your personal stock portfolio or your personal career opportunities ought to be more important to most folks than the innocent lives of more than 50 million babies snuffed by a materialistic court decision like Roe vs. Wade, you are in for disappointment. If you think that the "right" of the sexually perverted to put things where they do not belong is more important to most folks than the continued privileged status of the institution of actual marriage, you are in for a disappointment.
Without the political albatross (however just) of ever and always cutting your taxes, the GOP without its antimoral relentlessly and obsessively materialistic platoon will, under whatever name, do a far better job of re-establishing a political majority of the seriously religious and seriously nationalistic of whatever race, nationality of ancestry and socio-economic stratum. People united in the cause of NOT being in silent service to our spoiled and pathetic money elites (see Christopher Lasch's Revolt of the Elites) will include a lot more members of minotity groups who have more realistic views of the boss than do some Republicans.
Metrosexuality is not an American cause. It is a cause of Howard Yeeeeeeeargh Dean (an heir to Dean Witter, but of course)
Class warfare is another term reflecting the fact that the long-time social contract between American investors/administrators and American workers has long since been torn up and a new one is coming. Today's population has suffered at best a mere thirty or so years of wage stagnation or worse despite massive improvements in efficiency via technology, all of the income from which has been hogged by an economic cabal. Labor unions have been broken and every way imaginable has been indulged to destroy the economic security of workers.
By all means, leave the GOP or, alternatively, allow the social issue conservatives to walk away and the social conservatives will have the best of it. My motivation is Catholicism. The standard is Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII (1893). That standard does not require anyone to be Catholic to benefit from its wisdom as the governing philosophy of labor/management relations. A good wage for good and loyal work, a loyalty that is a two-way street wherein you employ no one whom you do not intend to keep employed, an understanding that the overnment that does not serve the interest of families first is a governbment that may be and ought to be replaced, etc. It beats the heck out of devil take the hindmost hich is the guiding force of materialism. We don't like Marxists (dialectical materialists) or any other kind of materialists. Ayn Rand is a bad cartoon.
My Church teaches also that we hate the sin and love the sinner. John Cardinal O'Connor tended homosexual AIDS victims with his own hands at Church expense. Have you done what he did? You ar referencing with the "God hates faggots" baloney an eccentric plains set of offensive folks who not only hat the sinner but also inflict themselves on military funerals to claim that the soldier died because of lavender special "rights" or even toleration of lavenders. Nice try but despising the sick practices of homosexuals which has led to major epidemic is not in that category. If you think it is, for whatever reason, try to sell that to the public.
When the fiscal "conservatives" of the Demonrats join you, will you be electing Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist, putting Monica in public office as a role model, or putting the country under the control of lavender commandos???? The sooner the likes of you and the likes of me are divorced politically, the better.
Realign, realign: Dance to the music. Money is not a cause to die for. God is.
My deepest admiration for your post and particularly its last paragraph.
See #204. It was not directed at you. I pinged you because you semed to be on the same page as I. Confusion is my fault.
I have a few of her books,
I had her linked to my web page,
I even made a point of listening to her everytime she was on the radio or TV.
I 'was' a big fan of hers,
then I got tired of her pure meanness (sometime around the Harriet Miers thing). Now I just ignore her.
You can dislike Ann and think she's a vicious witch and still be a voting member of the GOP. Worshiping her isn't a requirement. Even here.
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.