Meanwhile you claim that your portrayal of Lindsay Graham does not suggest homosexuality but merely effeminacy. That argument sounds fam,iliar but you reject it unless you are advancing it. Your limited understanding of language suggests otherwise.
At least you had the guts to attempt an answer which is more than most of your platoon would have under the circumstances.
We may not disagree on as much as we might think.
Let's see how much we agree on.
1) I believe that the PC police have tried to hijack free speech, and the idea of sending someone to "rehab" is absolutely asinine, and is a harbinger of really bad things in the future if we don't nip it in the bud. I really do believe that.
2) I believe there is a radical homosexual agenda which threatens to destroy the fabric of society, and which threatens to undermine us as a nation. I honestly believe that as well.
3) I believe our so-called conservative leadership has failed us in representing the conservative base, has ignored us, and fails to give voice to our concerns. I believe this also, and it makes me boiling mad. All too often they have been cowed and wanted to be "liked" and "politically correct." And as a result, the Republican party is not at all what it once was when I began voting (starting with Ronald Reagan).
I believe this enormous frustration is reaching groundswell proportions, as it should. Almost revolutionary proportions. I share in this frustration, I can't tell you how much.
Part of this frustration is why I created the Lindsey Graham graphic. To me he epitomizes weak leadership in so many ways.
Along comes Ann Coulter, and makes the remark we know so well.
Here is the problem I have with it, and we can agree to disagree and save some bantering back and forth if you like:
• It is ineffective (IMHO). If she had said flat out that PC thought police will not be tolerated, that the Isaiah Washinton incident is reminiscent of Soviets sending citizens to reeducation camps , and that the homosexual agenda is what it is, I would be singing her praises the loudest. Because that's what I believe.
• Instead, she used a convoluted joke (and yes, I got it the first time I heard it) to refer to the incident.
Here is where we may disagree, but only in tactics, not in overall goals:
I believe by drawing John Edwards in the joke, (where if you strip away the substance of what was being *rightly criticized*, did not relate to him), she made an unfair accusation, and it was below the belt and bad form. I can't STAND John Edwards politically. I believe he is a charlatan and a danger to our nation. But her joke was not grounded in truth about his sexuality...it's like she she just put him in there because she needed a placeholder.
And I believe Ann is bombastic in order to get herself noticed, which is fine and dandy. But (IMHO) therer is a time and place for everything, and again (IMHO) this wasn't it.
There is so much SUBSTANCE we can use against them. That's all.
I think we only disagree on tactics, not the final goal. Am I far off?