Posted on 03/05/2007 12:51:58 AM PST by kristinn
It is with growing dismay and frustration that I am watching so many of my friends and acquaintances in the conservative community attack Ann Coulter for her comments pointing out that saying the word 'faggot' can get you sent to a rehabilitation clinic.
That she said it in the context of primping pretty boy Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards has sent conservatives to the fainting couch in an episode of 'why I never!' mass hysteria.
Ann Coulter has walked point for conservatives for almost a decade. She has been assaulted, threatened and stalked. She requires bodyguards for protection. Liberals believe they are justified in physically attacking Ann. I heard one say so at CPAC--not in response to her rehab joke, but because Ann 'insults people.'
Ann has been an early and loyal friend of Free Republic. She is one of the few prominent conservatives who regularly breaks bread with FReepers. Her friendship is now being repayed by FReepers who want her driven out of conservatism.
That so many conservatives want Ann banned from CPAC is a sad indicator of the state of conservatism. It is not Ann Coulter's fault that Republicans lost both houses of Congress. It is not Ann Coulter's fault that President Bush is not popular. Sacrificing Ann Coulter on the altar of political correctness will not win the elections of 2008 nor will it prevent conservatives from being sent to rehab for uttering politically incorrect words and ideas.
After Ann uttered the words that have given so many conservatives the vapors, the line for her booksigning at CPAC was just as long as usual. I know, I was standing in that line. If CPAC attendees were so outraged about Ann's remarks, it was not manifested there. I didn't learn about the controversy until I read about it online later that night.
I spent the next day at CPAC. Ann's remarks were not a hot topic. I know because the only time I heard it talked about was when I brought it up. Those I spoke with about it were not upset.
I do not wish to speak ill of my friends and acquaintances who are dumping on Ann, other than to express my disappointment. I do wish they'd reconsider and stop attacking a friend who has walked point for them. Liberals must be laughing themselves silly as they watch us take out someone they've been wanting to eliminate for years.
Depends on how old my child is. If my child is an adult than he can face the music that he plays. I'm not going to demand that he retract what he said. He has as much right to free speech as you or I do. If people make stupid statements it is there reputation that suffers and not mine. I guess personal responsibility went the way of Rome when government started passing laws that constrict free speech.
Thanks for your posts. Well said.
Glad to see re-enforcements! Now, tag, you're it! When I get to the point of referring a poster back to my initial post, I know we're talking in circles.
So it is o.k. to have a presidential candidate who dresses up like a girl, marched in pervert parades and lived with two homosexuals???
So it is o.k. to have a presidential candidate who dresses up like a girl, marched in pervert parades and lived with two homosexuals???
Um, uh, well, er, that would mean I'd have to put down this popcorn, and...
When I get to the point of referring a poster back to my initial post, I know we're talking in circles.
Some people just require a lot of repetition. Nothing wrong with the occasional copy and paste! You go girl!
Munch, munch, munch.
"Am I the only one who thinks Ann, in an exquisitely executed statement, revealed the craven hypocrisy of her "conservative" audience, which is preparing to embrace Rudy, who is the crown jewel of the gay lobby?"
An exquisitely executed question....
Yes it was...
Sniveling twits are highly upended by the cacaphony of fatuous liberal umbrage at The Lady Ann's satirical remarks.
Either the 'conservative outrage' is being expressed by libs operating 'undercover' or the Reagan revolution is caput!
That's about as accurate as your other guesses.
You really have no clue about who Ann Coulter is, do you?
Um, yeah. She's a writer and "pundit" who has made a career of being as provocative as possible.
Well that's fine. In your social tea's you can put down Ann as a coarse hick
It's amusing to me how much stuff you make up. You are apparently convinced that I'm an Ivy-league society matron. I am, in fact, a 36-year-old short fat Southern man whose preferred beverage is whiskey -- but #2 is iced tea, so you got me there.
I would never describe Ann Coulter as a hick. That would be grossly unfair to hicks, who usually have some sense of decorum. She is in kindest terms a shrill Yankee.
A few folks did, not mainstream public figures, but hip-hoppers and Farakkhan types. Many of them didn't endorse the message, but claimed it had been taken out of context and inflated by the media -- does that sound familiar?
“I am looking at this objectively.” My opinion is that you reacted emotionally and attacked the speaker instead of the idea she expressed. This forum is about expressing ideas and defending them logically. Why is your opinion objective? Why does your opinion have a higher value (so that Ann’s ideas cannot be expressed)?.
Why can't I condemn them? If I think they are incendiary, I can condemn them, just as anyone can. "To disagree" suggests there is a debate about the subject matter -- as if we are debating whether or not Edwards is a "faggot." To condemn is to say this isn't a matter of disagreement -- "faggot", in this context, is an crude word which should be condemned as a part of public discourse. In your opinion, the way Ann used the word to make a point was “crude”. Aren’t you just reacting based on the word used and your emotions? Your opinion that her words are incendiary as to incite violence seems to be over the top. Did you listen to her whole speech or only the part that the media has hyped? Did she say it as a joke (and her speech was a series of jokes) or did she intentionally with malice insult Edwards or the actor who actually used the word? Perhaps she was the messenger and just repeating words that others have used and made a very significant point (in the form of a joke) about political correctness.
"Ann is very capable of explaining her reasoning, and if people listen and understand they would see the positive logical thoughts behind her comments. I disagree that she has an uncivil tongue. I find her very thought provoking, but others react emotionally without comprehending what is really being said." We are all well aware of Ann's "logical thoughts". Yes, we are all well aware that this was a commentary on political correctness -- which could have easily been made without taking a personal shot at Edwards. It was a joke and not a malicious personal attack. (My guess is that Ann could be very vicious if she wanted to.) I guess it is Ok for Edwards to employee Catholic bashers until political pressure forced them to leave. Sometimes you have to level the playing field.
Amazing the kinds of words you can pass off under the guise of "logical thought." If you don't consider words like "raghead", "faggot", "harpies" etc. to be uncivil, that is entirely your right. I'm sure the teachers must love the colorful language of your kids. You react to the words and not the ideas. They are words and the words themselves are not uncivil. The use of the “proper words” does not make a group of people civilized, sometimes you need to communicate and get people’s attention with words that you do not like. Who should determine the “proper” words to use? Are you going to be the “Word Police’?
My standards, and it seems the standards of most of the conservative pundits on this issue, are a bit higher on what is considered "civil". I am glad that you have high standards and you don’t use such words, but don’t judge others (that is God’s role) that are trying to communicate ideas. I would like everyone to be kind to one another and to live in a perfect world. If the other side is fighting by street rules, then we could easily lose the fight if we insist on using Queensberry rules. We are fighting for survival and we need to stand behind our conservative values and principles.
A bit of hyperbole in my part. No, you did not say she deserved a medal. But you praised her courage and leadership, and those are things they give medals for. And I think the plaudits are unearned in Coulter's case.
You need to remember...she isn't running for any office!
She was the keynote speaker at CPAC, invited and sponsored by people who are running for office. This wasn't a column or a blog entry or a speech on a Carnival cruise. Most of those candidates are now distancing themselves from her comments.
Her job as a columnist/commentator is to expose the left. She has. In the process, she has also exposed the weak-kneed side of the GOP.
You say "weak-kneed," I say "principled." My first loyalty is to principle. I am loyal to my family and to my friends, but if it comes down to a question of helping a friend or doing right, I will choose the latter.
Again...she's not running for office.
And the folks who are running for office are also running from Ann. Big red flag right there.
Yeah, and most people are attracted to straight shooters, not PC meely-mouths. If the GOP is just the Ivy league high brows, then you repel a HUGE base.
You keep repeating that, but a view of history does not support it. Every president since 1988 has been an Ivy League alum. The "straight-shooters" have been a sideshow. The smooth-talkers win the day.
First, thank you for your honesty. Second, thanks for showing how off the wall your idea is. Spray painting any property is a crime, and that crime should be punished. No one should get more time for spray painting a synagogue over a library.
I disagree. Painting swastikas ona synagogue is not the same crime as painting "jimmy loves suzie" on a water tower. One is a teen prank, the other an act of terror and intimidation.
Hate crimes laws are more or less moot in serious felony cases. They are useful in heading kids off when they commit "letty" crimes, before they become felons.
Hate crime legislation attempts to judge what a person is thinking and punish the unknowable.
There is no novelty there. The difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter is entirely in the killer's head. Intent and motive are elements of the crime. If you committed a crime because you were in a strange situation that won't be repeated, it might be safe to let you out sooner; if you committed a crime because you hate black people, the odds are pretty good you'll se a black person again. Even if you move to Idaho.
If I murder someone, the punishment shouldn't vary on the color of the victims skin.
Hate crimes don't apply a simple formulation of the perp's and the victim's skin color. If the state claims a hate crime, that is another element it must prove at trial.
That's where you fail to realize what goes on in the real world. I don't embrace the gangsta culture. In fact I'm trying to raise my kids to be completely out of that kind of world. However, I'm also preparing them for the real world where the gangstas live. Do I throw around the words faggot, nigger, kike, etc. everyday, around my family, or in good company?...no. Am I afraid to use them when pointing out the falsehoods in liberal America in a political debate?...No.
And are you defending folks who use them? You are here.If you aren't amongst your children, good. Yes, I reject that. Emphatically.
"( I'm sure the other mommies will be impressed -- just don't do it under the banner of conservatism.)"
Oh, so you are the banner carrier of the the conservatives. Nice to know someone has taken charge of monitoring the conservatives. Not unlike the demorats who have have also assigned themselves this oversight.
"Wouldn't want to offend anybody by drawing a line between right and wrong, would we?"
So you hold the grail as to what is right and what is wrong. Tell the demorats they can get back to the business they were elected to do instead of just pounding on conservatives for their actions. There now is a word monitor in charge. Sheesh.
Face it, half the Dem Party are jealous of Ann and would love to sleep with her. The other half are men.
Pray for W and Our Troops
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.