Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan
What are you, the rainman?
I'd have to agree with the premises of your questions to answer them the way you want. I'd have thought by now it would have understood I'm not going to play by rules you wrote.
You can call me anything you'd like. I'd have to have some sort of regard for your opinion for it to matter to me.
As it is, I'm thoroughly convinced yours is an inferior intellect.
I'm sorry, are you actually comparing immigration reform and airport security to exercising enough restraint to not call someone a faggot in front of a microphone?
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?
Show me on this thread where I or anybody else called for anyone to be censored or for Ann Coulter to stop speaking.
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.
Yes, truly I'm terrified. Physician heal thyself. You treat me like I'm deciding what can and can't be said (horse hockey, I am saying what I think will help our movement) and then you promptly decide what standard I have to meet in order to say something.
Check into my posting history all you want. Bring whatever you want to the mods and try to get me banned and never realize you're being a spectacular hypocrite. Then ask yourself how many news stories have been done about my FR posts. (Here's a hint: It's the number between 1 and -1.)
BTW, I noticed that you didn't have anything to say about Reagan...and I'm not even remotely surprised.
Look into the rate of clinical depression among those who are terminal and suffering from pain, and you'll change your mind.
Very much my own position. What I find objectionable is the attempt to "shame" those that don't celebrate corrosive and nasty behavior.
There's no doubt, oral sex is very popular. It's just that I wash my hands after urination for a reason...oral sex kind of defeats that purpose, and I see nothing wrong with not ignoring those particular facts.
Why? I thought calling people names proved intellectual superiority?
What in my previous two posts didn't you understand? Move on.
You might want to find another pastime besides thinking...you're not very good at it.
I like what you are trying to do and you make good points.
HOWEVER, 1) Ann was there for entertainment, which she did, and 2) Personlly, I would pick #5. Kick him in the crotch and throw him in a dicth.
Your surrender is accepted.
You, sir, are wise and your post gave me a good laugh...but don't let the Secret Service see it! :-)
Fortunately, your assessment of me as a poor thinker is just as accurate as your assessment that I am a coward because I support advancing conservative ideas.
Yup. I suspect Mrs. Medved doesn't clean her own house.
So, you're wrong, and I'm right.
I hope you feel better now. I'm sure you have better things to do on a Friday night than argue about Ann with other Freepers. I know I do.
"Show me on this thread where I or anybody else called for anyone to be censored or for Ann Coulter to stop speaking."
Did you even read the article, or were you in such a hurry to express your highly refined moral outrage that you just skipped it?
You and others claimed to be agreeing with Medved. Here is what was the point of his typically nervous Nelly, panzy-fied soporific piece:
"Every major event, every potential speaker, every resolution, every specific approach, deserves evaluation in terms of effectiveness in party building—winning new adherents to the cause.
We should ask a crucial question before we speak or act: will this draw people to conservative ideas and ideals, or will it serve to turn them off and push them away?"
Sounds like Medved is calling for Coulter to be dis-invited from any place where she may reflect poorly upon the sacred conservative movement. (Which Medved seems to feel should be dedicated to amnesty and gay-marriage, for starters.)
Well that would be anywhere Coulter appears. So he is effectively calling for her to be silenced. And you are in agreement with him. (If you read the piece.)
And guess what? CPAC is not a GOP event. It is a private event. It is attended by the most conservative of the conservatives. It is attended by a lot of College Republicans, who are sick and tired of the defeatist pieties of people like Michael Medved. And who can enjoy a little humor along the way.
Guess what else? Taping at CPAC is prohibited. Whoever taped Coulter's joke (and her backstage meeting with Romney) probably had an agenda to start with. They were probably in the employ of Mr. Soros who has been targeting Ms. Coulter for years.
This is barely one step up from somehow tape-recording Coulter talking to some friends at dinner or out on the street, and then running to MSNBC and the rest of the media with the saucy things she said.
And will you please stop it with the Reagan comparisons.
For crying out loud, Reagan caught holy hell for a lot of the things he said. Including his jokes, such as "the bombing begins in five minutes."
He was called all the things that Coulter is called today, and then some. Probably even by people like you.
And, for the hundredth time, Coulter is no Reagan. (Though he was a fan of hers.) She is not the President of the United States. She is not even a politician.
She is just a pundit who happens to be the biggest conservative draw across the nation, including CPAC, year in and year out. She makes politically incorrect jokes. She has done so for going on ten years at CPAC. They know it, the world knows it. Apparently you haven't quite heard that yet.
And, despite her impious humore, Ann Coulter has somehow brought more people, young, old, gay, and black and any other stripe into the conservative movemen than any other person active today -- with the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh. (Who himself has said and even done some questionable things.)
I have never run into anybody who told be they became a conservative because of listening to Michael Medved. Or even Mr. Silverback.
Get the hell over your damn self.
"Guess what else? Taping at CPAC is prohibited."
And before I get jumped on, the one exception is C-SPAN, who has never in the ten years she has appeared at CPAC, carried any of Ms. Coulter's speeches.
How many times do I have to tell you?
You're not a coward for advancing conservative ideas; you're a coward for trying to trying to browbeat conservatives into letting you out of opposing liberals.
I think Coulter made a stupid mistake in using an inappropriate schoolyard taunt. I don't care if she was alluding to some Hollywood moron's comments (and wedging that allusion in awkwardly). Conservatives can draw down plenty of lightning from the media in a way that illuminates their positions and makes people face hard truths. This slip of her lip only gave the media an excuse to ignore anything of substance.
She is often insightful but is often a loose cannon.
Call 'im a faggot. And since he's some kinda perfesser feller, he probly is.
Now, if someone you generally like should say "faggot" should you:
A. Never speak to him again
B. Make him grovel apologetically then never speak to him again.
C. Never speak to him again and make sure nobody else speaks to him again.
D. Understand that calling someone a faggot is by far the worst thing anyone can ever do -- even worse than wishing terrorists killed the vice president or sending an innocent man to jail, and never speak to that person again.
Medved is calm, reasonable and (usually) polite (I do recall a spat he had with Michell Malkin when they were both relative unknowns in Seattle that was different). He doesn't usually make comments like this unless it really bothers him.
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.