Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Addition or subtraction?: Ann Coulter and the conservative crossroads
Townhall.com ^ | March 7, 2007 | Michael Medved

Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 461-471 next last
To: Dominic Harr
If your kid calls another kid a 'faggot' in class, and that kid punches him -- do you think your son did anything wrong?

Only if the kid was straight. Then, my son would be in the wrong and shouldn't have said it.
If the kid claimed to be gay, sure. He could use the word.

I repeat, Faggot means homosexual. That's what the word means.

Why should a free people be dictated to by the left wing thought control machine and be forced to obey their lingual dictates? Who are they to decide what words are acceptable and which are not? Already they're trying to out law certain parts of the American language. How many words are we "forbidden " to use?

Speak up now, folks, or forever hold your tongues.

201 posted on 03/07/2007 9:13:57 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I repeat, Faggot means homosexual.

And 'nigger' means black person.

So do you allow your children to call black folk 'nigger'?

202 posted on 03/07/2007 9:15:52 AM PST by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Mean and nasty people don't win elections. There's nothing to defend about a self-evident statement. What don't you understand about it?

Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Raul Emanuel, etc, etc, etc.
Mean and nasty people win elections all the time!!!
That's my point.

203 posted on 03/07/2007 9:16:49 AM PST by Ramcat (Thank You American Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I don't know how old you are, but I am almost 40 and it has not been a "normal word" for my entire lifetime. And not because of a political movement of homosexuals, but because it is vulgar.

I'm 41 and maybe where you are from that's the case. But from where me and Ann are from, it's a schoolyard taunt that has nothing to do with homosexuals. If they want to be offended by it being used to describe obviously heterosexuals that is really their problem.

204 posted on 03/07/2007 9:16:57 AM PST by PajamaTruthMafia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Michael Medved the epitome of almost all that is wrong with Republicans(notice I didn't say conservative)


205 posted on 03/07/2007 9:17:11 AM PST by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
No, it doesn't:

The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 b>represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.

To claim the words are even remotely equivalent is disingenuous at best.

206 posted on 03/07/2007 9:20:59 AM PST by PajamaTruthMafia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Thank you so much for posting this very timely & thoughtful commentary, Ivan, and special thanks in a roundabout way to those freepers contributing to this thread this morning who have managed, albeit apparently unwittingly, to illustrate Mr. Medved's essential thesis with such brilliant clarity themselves.

(Keep the faith, MadIvan!)

207 posted on 03/07/2007 9:21:21 AM PST by leilani (Alas, the wisdom conveyed in this piece will be entirely lost on all the barking hyenas here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
But from where me and Ann are from, it's a schoolyard taunt that has nothing to do with homosexuals.

I wasn't aware that we allowed young schoolchildren to vote, or that we don't expect a 40-45 year old adult to use the same language as an 8 year old.

208 posted on 03/07/2007 9:22:30 AM PST by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
But from where me and Ann are from, it's a schoolyard taunt that has nothing to do with homosexuals.

I wasn't aware that we allowed young schoolchildren to vote, or that we don't expect a 40-45 year old adult to use the same language as an 8 year old.

209 posted on 03/07/2007 9:22:34 AM PST by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
It has nothing to do with this conversation. Ann is an author an commentator, not a candidate for President.

Can you read? The conversation is about whether the kind of stuff Ann did...

ADVANCES THE CONSERVATIVE CAUSE.

There, I put it in big letters so you could read it. Now, can you tell me when Reagan used slur words against his opponents? Can you tell me how the word "faggot" tells the public that John Edwards is a lying, demogoguing, Marxist twit? Can you tell me why the words "Nobody should be sent to rehab for using a word, and that means any word" would not have been just as effective? Can you tell me what good thing about conservatives an open-minded 20 year old voter will get from the word "faggot" that he wouldn't get from transmission of Reagan's ideas in language Reagan would stand behind?

As for the N-word question, you are dodging again, and if you can't read what's on the screen in my comments, I can't imagine you can read my mind. You said she was making a point against semantic totalitarianism. Well, why wouldn't it be OK for her to use the N-word and illustrate how some people can use it but some people can't? When people said, "Ann Coulter used that word and it means X," Coulter could say, "If it means X, why are people of a certain skin color calling themselves that each day and thinking it's a good thing?"

So, why wouldn't be OK for her to use the N-word to describe Obama?

210 posted on 03/07/2007 9:23:44 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Logic" is as meaningless to a liberal as "desert" is to a fish.--Freeper IronJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
So you go around referring to black people as "Negroes"?

Nope. Why should I? I call all people "people."
Homosexuality is a chosen behavior. Faggot is a word that refers to them by their behavior. They chose to be faggots.
Abortionists chose to be abortionists. I don't call them "doctors." I call them abortionists or baby killers.
I call those on social programs "Welfare recipients", too.
I call illegal aliens "illegal aliens."

I even use the word "articulate!"

211 posted on 03/07/2007 9:24:05 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
To claim the words are even remotely equivalent is disingenuous at best.

This is the basis of the argument.

To allow these words to be remotely equivalent is allowing the argument that the struggle for civil rights is on par with creating a protected class of homosexuals.

I'm not buying the argument.

212 posted on 03/07/2007 9:25:33 AM PST by Ramcat (Thank You American Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Ramcat
My point is that Bill Clinton was despicable, mean and nasty and insulted his opponents with things they weren't guilty of. Ronald Reagan was about ideas and never slurred his opponents.

Yes, I know you're thinking I've proved your point for you, but do you want to be Bill or Ronnie? Also, which one of those guys won two landslides and which one won two elections where well over 50% of the country voted against him?

213 posted on 03/07/2007 9:26:35 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Logic" is as meaningless to a liberal as "desert" is to a fish.--Freeper IronJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: PajamaTruthMafia
To claim the words are even remotely equivalent is disingenuous at best.

To pretend they are different is a clear case of denial.

"Faggot" means gay person in exactly the same way "nigger" means black person.

Faggot is used as an insult, and gay people are offended when a person in seriousness uses that word as an insult.

Gays and straights alike are offended when called a 'faggot' by someone they don't like.

The two terms are both, clearly, gonna get you into a fight if you aren't careful where, when and how you use them.

214 posted on 03/07/2007 9:26:59 AM PST by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: LWalk18

You don't really need me to explain the point to you do you? What's your point, Ann put off some people who might have voted Republican but now will not? Please! That's simply ridiculous. You have any idea how many people loath this PC culture and the culture of faux outrage and offense?


215 posted on 03/07/2007 9:27:21 AM PST by PajamaTruthMafia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I call them abortionists or baby killers.

No no no You aren't ALLOWED to do that. Hate speech and thought control. We want it and we need it now! We will control debate and the people by outlawing words and certain thoughts. Step right up. These topics and words are off limits to all citizens. You will be met with swift and harsh punishment.

216 posted on 03/07/2007 9:28:02 AM PST by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Yes, I know you're thinking I've proved your point for you,

You did, and your argument makes no sense.

217 posted on 03/07/2007 9:28:20 AM PST by Ramcat (Thank You American Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

"As to the recruitment point - I would take at least some of that seriously. Without the African American vote, no Democrat can win the Oval Office."

And that is what is, at least a potentially huge problem for democrats. Their "base" is so fragmented that it cannot avoid being at odds, one with the other. At some point this must come crashing down upon them,

Now, believing the above as I do, I say that conservatives best play is to return to their base ( as I believe that betrayal of said base is what cost them on 06) and stop making apologies for our principals.

I saw anns comments as a pretty clever manner of spotlighting the liberals pratice of incrementalism as it pertains to the destruction of the 1st ammendment.

Ok, I know that was a little bit of a ramble, but hey, I "feel" better.

Greg


218 posted on 03/07/2007 9:28:47 AM PST by crude77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

Maybe where you are from but not here.


219 posted on 03/07/2007 9:29:27 AM PST by PajamaTruthMafia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
My question is, does that then mean they would support her if she had said "I won't comment on Senator Obama because white people aren't allowed to use the word [N-word]." If not, why not?

Race is not a chosen behavior. Faggot is. Not all behaviors HAVE to be tolerated ( although the left would like to force some to be).

220 posted on 03/07/2007 9:29:44 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 461-471 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson