Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan
I'm pro-choice, in fact.
Or, maybe I wouldn't. :-)
I just disagree with you on this one. I feel that humans have a right to check out if they want to.
To each their own. Which is the point.
Oh, well, gosh.
With stunning logic like that deployed, I s'pose I must change my entire world-view!
:-D
Partial birth abortion?
"This slip of her lip only gave the media an excuse to ignore anything of substance."
I have news for you. I followed CPAC for years. The media has NEVER covered anything of substance from there.
If they can't find something negative (like a Islam=Nazis bumpersticker) then they just skip it all together.
And yes, that bumpersticker was provided by a prominent Freeper, who was not driven away from FR.
Yes.
In cases where the mother's life is at stake, yes.
To me, abortion is in the same catagory as killing puppies and kittens.
Btw, we're no longer in the catagory of 'actions between consenting adults' once you start getting into the discussion of abortion, anyway.
Once there's another creature involved, that's a different discussion. One I'm happy to have . . . but we're in a different topic entirely.
I didn't realize you were the final decision maker on all that is right and wrong in the world! Boy, this helps a lot to know you.
Tell me, white wine and pasta, good or bad?
Two consenting adults building a nuclear weapon?
Now *that* is an interesting question -- altho off the original topic also.
Should the right to bear arms apply to nukes?
But again, we're talking about a non-criminal enterprise between two consenting adults. No one gets hurt, y'see? In fact, two gay people having sex are typically being *very* NICE to each other.
Laughing so hard that it hurts. Glass houses mojo.
For starters, John Edwards is not going to be the Dem nominee for President. Ann's comments were made in the context of going down the list of possible nominees from both parties. Ann Coulter and the rest of us conservatives are more concerned about who is going to be the Rep nominee, not who the Dems are going to nominate through their primary process. For the Dems, our comments about their possible candidates are irrelevant and meaningless. Edwards' attempt to use Ann's comments to raise money shows how bankrupt [pun intended] his campaign really is.
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?
Ann Coulter is not an elected official or a member of the GOP hierarchy. She is a private citizen, political pundit, and entertainer. She speaks for herself despite the Dem/MSM attempts to say otherwise. Moreover, Ann Coulter is being Ann Coulter. It was a JOKE, not an attempt to destroy John Edwards as a candidate or to advance conservatism.
Why should Ann Coulter be held to a different standard than George Will or Bill Maher or Michael Moore? Why should she have to weigh every word she speaks or writes in order to advance the conservative movement? No one elected or chose her to be the standard bearer of the conservative movement. This is about free speech and political correctness.
You can set up whatever phony strawmen you like, but I find this disproportionate response to Ann Coulter's remark more than just mere happenstance. The Left has been trying to silence her for years. They can't without our help, which is why they are calling for more outrage from the Right. They need some useful idiots on our side to pile on.
Your examples on how to "advance conservative ideas and harm a liberal enemy" fail to recognize that in the rough and tumble world of elective politics, personal, negative attacks on opponents can be quite effective. Ideas don't necessarily carry the day. The Left/MSM's demonization of Bush has worked. Despite having no ideas and no positive agenda, they regained control over Congress and Bush's job approval ratings are near record lows. Politics ain't beanbag and the sooner we learn that, the better.
Pure Gold!
You hear that, Useful Idiot?
In the United States it does, nowadays.
However, in the not-too-distant past, 'nigger' was used to describe (generally) any one of a large number of non-Caucasian groups. E.g. in Charles Williams' War in Heaven, published in 1930 in England, in the chapter Conversations of a Young Man in Grey, one character snarls at another, "No we don't want you. Nor Hindoos, Chinks, or any other kind of nigger."
There are two points.
One is that language and acceptable usage change over time.
The other is that (as Orwell taught us, and unfortunately, the left, in 1984) is that if you control what constitutes acceptable usage, you can control the very terms of the debate, and hence the outcome.
Ann is simply trying to fight for freedom of speech that the left wants to stigmatize; and to point out the hypocrisy of the "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" crowd.
For more on these topics, see my vanities on Coulter here, and here, and one on liberal speech hypocrisy here.
Cheers!
No, that's not the point at hand here. "To each his own" is a philosophical proposition.
The "point" at hand here is whether Ann should be thrown under the bus for using language that provokes an obnoxious but influential minority.
Let me in on the joke.
Produce a post from me that would drive any block of voters away from conservatism or the GOP?
Meanwhile, I could produce some -- even from the owner of this forum -- that would do that. And has done that.
(Cf. "bloodsucking party.")
Which is my point.
You can't please everybody all the time.
Sorry, but that just doesn't pass muster.
Language usage changes over time. At *this* time, a majority of people consdier 'faggot' to be a childish insult on the level of a 10 year old. If someone I knew didn't like the word 'sandwich', I wouldn't use it around them, or when talking about them. The english language is rich enough that I can still communicate fine, no skin off my back at all.
The majority of people who believe in the conservative use of federal power do *not* want someone speaking in our name calling people 'faggot'. We believe it's just rude and tacky.
Her 'joke' was all about how using the word faggot is a bad thing. Unfortunately for her, most of us think that is true, and not a joke.
This isn't about some grand, glorious fight for free speach. This is about you don't insult people on purpose when having a political discussion.
Obviously, some small % of all people on both sides now believe that calling names is part of the debate. That side is just comfortable with a tacky society. Ann's comments were on the level of Mike Savage or Howard Stern.
I like her, and will still listen to her. But when she's at 'Conservative' function speaking for and to people like me, I'd prefer her to not call people childish names.
Some people just want a cause, I suppose! First ammendment, not even.
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.