Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan
Bump for later reading
How many times are you going to equate "Saying that isn't good" with "Ban that word and lock up those who use it!" You really can't think they're the same thing, can you?
That said, I'm starting to wonder if we're still conservatives here at FR. Think that's too harsh? Well, consider this: One of the classic identifiers of the numb-as-a-hake liberal is that they are quick to declare criticism of an idea they like as being the same as trying to take away the right to express that idea. Haven't we all seen the libs act like they're going to prison if someone says they're not patriotic? Haven't we all seen these people show up at their little war protests demanding to be called patriots when they spew what is unpatriotic, with a gaggle of protesters wearing duct tape on their mouths because the administration took their right to protest away?
Well, it took exactly five posts before it came up in this thread, where aviator asked "Don't we have free speech in this country?" The charge was repeated time and again by others down through the thread. Papertyger even said that those who think Coulter was off-message are cowards who have no interest in fighting America's enemies.
Folks, John Edwards is one of the most vulnerable candidates to criticism that has ever run for president. Ann Coulter was shooting at the broad side of a barn and hit thin air. Yet there is not only a cheering section here treating her like Annie Oakley, they treat anyone who says "This was not helpful to our cause" as if they are the Gestapo, ready to lock her in a dungeon.
So, to help you see where the rest of us are coming from, here's a quiz, just three quick questions. Each deals with an opportunity to advance conservative ideas and harm a liberal enemy, and offers some ways to exploit that opportunity:
1. You are a student at a four year university in an American History survey course. Your history professor tells the class that robber barons preyed on workers and customers through monopolies to support their unbridled greed. If you want to balance or overcome the effect of this drivel and convince your fellow students that conservatism is the better ideology, should you...
A. Point out how the so-called robber barons like Carnegie and Rockefeller made it easier for the common man to afford products that improved their lives, and used the profits to benefit mankind
B. Use the professor's own published work to prove his unswerving support of Marxist ideology, rendering his views on any capitalist operation suspect at best
C. Ask the professor whether all retards have sex with their mothers like he does, then sit down and wait for his answer. When he objects to your slanderous statement, you accuse him of trying to shut you up based on ideology.
D. Both A & B if the time is available.
2. You are running for city council in a town of 25,000 people. Your opponent is the incumbent and is related to the owner of a local airport. He wants to temporarily raise property taxes and use the money to fund major improvements to the local airport, including a runway extension so 737s and larger airliners can fly in and out. Do you...
A. Run ads detailing the effect of the taxes on the local economy and showing figures that prove no increased air service will materialize
B. Run ads detailing his history of tax hikes to fund pet projects, including several "temporary" tax increase that are still in place
C. Wait until you meet in a debate, and then ask in your opening statement when he will stop having sex with his dog.
D. Both A & B if the time/resources are available.
3. You have an opportunity to comment on a politician who is basically a Marxist ambulance chaser, supports socialized medicine, got deferments during Vietnam but clapped and grinned when John Kerry described Dick Cheney and George Bush as draft dodgers, talks about covetousness and "Two Americas" while owning one of the largest houses in his entire state and a beach house to boot. Do you...
A. Discuss the silliness of his health care proposals and the disaster socialized medicine has been in other countries. Suggest he wants to be president because if his health care plan goes through he's the only one who wouldn't be waiting in line for lifesaving surgery.
B. Call him out on his habitual hypocrisy, especially about poverty, and suggest that if he ever speaks out against car theft the police should look for a chop shop in his garage.
C. Ignore all of his actual positions and faults and call him a "faggot" so you can make a joke about how a bunch of idiot liberals did something to some other idiot liberal.
D. Both A & B if the time is available.
Now, the point y'all seem to be making is that anyone who answered A, B or D on those questions is a wimp, a lib, or in the Gestapo. In fact, some of you are acting as if insulting the enemy is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. Y'all seem to be saying that "John Edwards is a faggot" is not a means to advance conservatism, it is conservatism. Sure, it sucks that the Left says "Bush is Hitler" and other outrageous crap, but they say that crap because they have no ideas. And when the heck have we ever wanted to be like those losers? What principle does it serve to act like them?
So, how did you answer the quiz...and are we the heirs of Ronald Reagan, or Triumph the Insult Comic Dog?
You've got too many words there. You could have said that you missed the entire point in a more succinct post.
1) Even if Ann did miss, he did tag himself as an effemanate poofter. Direct hit. He's a wimp, whining that a widdle girl was mean to him. Not fit to govern. Not able to fight terrorists, etal.
2) She made a titanic, organic logical proof on the fallacy of political correctness. Recently, from Patrick Kennedy to Foley, all you gotta do is say "rehab" and everything you did is all better. Could she have made a more glaring insitu example?!?!
The left hates Ann. They hate FR. They hate me. They hate you. There's not a single way she can get through to them....but this was an interesting experiment in how to grab their golden PC goat....cuz Ann is an itch under their skin that won't go away.
See, I can be succinct.
Dude. Get a life. You spend way to much time on this subject. Find a new enemy.
The left hates Ann. They hate FR. They hate me. They hate you. There's not a single way she can get through to them...
I'm not interested in getting through to libs. I'm interested in drawing people into the conservative movement or at least voting for conservative candidates. Reagan did that with the Reagan Democrats in the Eighties, and he didn't do it by running around calling people faggot and then patting himself on the back for making a "logical proof on the fallacy of political correctness." He did it by communicating conservative values with dignity.
You, sir, are wise.
You just can not STAND being unable to dictate the terms of debate, can you? You can keep insisting the issue is alienating fence sitters till your fingers are bloody stumps. It's not going to change the fact your punctiliousness more about comforting yourself, than anything else.
You're not even satisfied to scream in caps. You have to jack up the font size, too!
The glaringly obvious fault is your soi-disant conundrum is that changing the elements and the circumstances changes the dynamic. (Hmmmm, let's see...letters have no numerical value, therefore the statement "x+1=3" has no meaning)
Simply brilliant!
So, I can put you down for option C on questions 1 and 2?
Are you "not...comfortable with" everything you are opposed to?
I can call you princess, right? It makes some wider point about political correctness?
I wouldn't even waste my time reading your post so I have no idea what you are taking about. You obviously have a problem with Ann. Good luck with it.
I'm not really "opposed" to anything that consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own homes, personally. Their lives, not my problem.
And you kinda give the impression you don't even approve of oral sex between a husband and wife . . . which most folks would say is over-the-top, I would think.
Or maybe I misunderstood?
"I'm interested in drawing people into the conservative movement or at least voting for conservative candidates."
Okay then. Let's throw overboard anybody who is against amnesty (or who even uses such hurtful terms as "illegal aliens"), who is for airport "profiling" (or indeed anybody who jokes about the prophet Mohammad), or anybody who doesn't champion gay marriage and adoption, or anyone who doesn't accept global warming as a fact and how the US is responsible....
Shall I go on?
All of those positions drive millions of people away from conservatism.
So who is to say what positions or even words can be allowed to be spoken by conservatives -- even conservative pundits who are making a joke?
You? Should you be the final arbiter?
Let's check your posting history here, and see if you shouldn't be banned from FR, drummed out of the conservative movement and shunned by conservatives everywhere.
I bet you posted something somewhere that could have offended somebody. Why should we put up with being associated with you?
Here, I'll post the most pertinent part of my post...heck, I'll save you time and post just a third of it:
1. You are a student at a four year university in an American History survey course. Your history professor tells the class that robber barons preyed on workers and customers through monopolies to support their unbridled greed. If you want to balance or overcome the effect of this drivel and convince your fellow students that conservatism is the better ideology, should you...
A. Point out how the so-called robber barons like Carnegie and Rockefeller made it easier for the common man to afford products that improved their lives, and used the profits to benefit mankind
B. Use the professor's own published work to prove his unswerving support of Marxist ideology, rendering his views on any capitalist operation suspect at best
C. Ask the professor whether all retards have sex with their mothers like he does, then sit down and wait for his answer. When he objects to your slanderous statement, accuse him of trying to shut you up based on ideology.
D. Both A & B if the time is available.
Now, what's your answer on that...and if it's not "C", why was Ann Coulter right to pick "C" when she went after John Edwards?
"I'm not really "opposed" to anything that consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own homes, personally. Their lives, not my problem."
Assisted suicide?
You're deep. (Just kidding.)
Tell you what...I'll concede the point to you as soon as any kind of prayer is returned to school.
There has never been a majority of Americans who believe school prayer violates the establishment clause.
The fact is much of liberal philosophy has been codified into defacto law. There is no conservative analog worth mentioning.
I have no problem with assisted suicide.
That should be a person's right.
Abortion?
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.