Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan
So, what if a person doesn't have cable? Do they still have to do rehab?
What nonsense!
It's just a word!!!!
FYI: Ann made the following remarks at CPAC during the same Q&A she made the faggot comment:
"I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media -- how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being pro-gays, and that's going to upset the right wingers," she said. "Well, you know, screw you! I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against."
She added, "I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us."
I see your point and appreciate your posts, here and on the Rudy threads.
I love Ann but I have to agree with Medved that her "faggot" comment did not help the conservative cause. To me, it's not an issue of free speech (she's certainly free to say it), it's civil, polite discourse.
While she didn't outright call him that, she did, by implication. I just don't see how that helps the conservative cause. She's not an elected official but she is in the public eye, and she made conservatives look bad, IMO.
It's interesting, though, that conservatives are having this debate. I wonder if the Dems would debate, for days, whether a comment made by one of them is civil/polite or not. I doubt it, LOL! And that reflects well on conservatives.
Again, I appreciate your posts and commitment to conservatism.
You have no idea what she was saying or the point she was making. You seem to think she was calling him a homosexual (and there is supposed to be nothing derogatory in that - right?).
As for the media, we pretty much agree they are biased, inaccurate and dishonest right? So why in the world do we give a rat's behind what they say or think? The more biased and outrageous they are the more credibility they lose (just ask NBC, MSNBC, NYT, Boston Globe, etc.). We give them credibility by reacting to what they say which only works against us in the long run. Just ask Scotter Libby what happens when you kowtow to the media....
When we as a group wake up and stop GIVING the Left so much power over us we will truly gain ground.
Really? This is why you signed up for conservatism?
I "signed up for conservatism" because I don't want to end up in a socialist gulag for thinking I was livig in a free country.
I have no interest in drinking tea with my pinky extended. Slurs and four letter words dont really bother me. We are in a fight against people who want to physically take your money, your property and your children from you and use them in the service of the socialist agenda.
Except when there is nobody in the race with a chance of winning that matches you purity test. Then you get irrelevance. Some pick the best candidate with a chance and make a difference. Some pick the candiate that makes them feel good about themselves. Just like some people make love, while other people just masturbate.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the pure conservatives don't really want to have a position of power. That would require them to actually do something, and to use a pragmatic approach instead of ideological purity.
No, they would much rather remain a fringe group and lambaste others. It is easy to be orthodox when there is no committment to action.
I agree with Medved. Why insult gays who choose to vote Republican...
I defend free speech. I feel no need to condemn Ann Coulter to prove to the hypocritical Left and the MSM that I am not a bigot or homophobe. The disproportionate reaction to Ann's remarks by the MSM and the Left is just another example of how they put us on the defensive and enlist some of us as "useful idiots" to help them destroy one of our own. This is just a tempest in a teapot.
Ann speaks for herself and is responsible for whatever consequences that may ensue. The Left is trying to make that linkage between Ann and the conservatives to smear everyone. We have become so defensive that many Reps feel the need to denounce and discredit Ann publicly to show that we are not all bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. No such onus applies to the Left because they are not assumed to be any of those things. We have the monopoly on bigotry, which is why we act guilty even if we are not. Can you imagine any of the Dem Presidential candidates even being asked to denounce inflamatory remarks made by Bill Maher, Al Franken, or Michael Moore let alone denouncing them?
What conservative movement? The one where liberals act offended and everybody craps their pants?
Personally, I use neither word but a great deal of the other stuff I say wouldn't be considered "appropriate for polite company".
Are you using the term vulgar in the common or the ivory tower sense? Regardless, my point is that the two words should have different societal taboo.
I don't think he said 4% of our population is gay. He said that according to exit polls 4% of those who voted in the 2000 election were gay and nearly a third of them voted for George Bush.
As for whether 4% of our population could be gay, I don't know if it's completely out of the realm of possibility that 4% of at least the adult population in this country could be be gay. That's just 4 out of every 100 people, so 96 out of 100 would be straight. There are a lot of gay people even in the small town in the Bible Belt where I live. Certainly there probably are several million in this country of 300 million people.
I could not agree more Tribune. I wish Canada had a ~tell it like it is~ personality like Ms. Coulter.
I am absolutely sick of it.
I think it's an ugly word, and can say that for a board that prizes itself on linguistic cleanliness it's been weird seeing it in print umpteen times in these threads.
LOL! I like that analogy alot. So voting Republican comes down to to wether you would rather have a Playboy magazine or a real live fat chick. I guess Rudy is the fat chick. Not what you really want. Not up to your usual standards, but at least she is real and you have a shot with her, plus there are not better looking women in the bar. do you put on the beer gogles and take her home? Hmm? Well you could go home to your Playboy mag (fill in real conservative candidate's name here). Man, those women look good. They are super hot, but you dont have a shot with them because they are only pictures on paper, and all you can do with them is draw the blinds and do what youve always practiced at.
I don't know, honestly. I guess it depends how desperate you are. Doing the deed with the fat chick could make me feel sick, gross, guilty, dirty and desperate, and without any self respect or self esteem. But at least I could say I got me some.
it is not an easy choice.
What a crock. Everyone has known the definition of the word since 5th grade, which also happens to be the last time most of us used it. This was shortly after "poopy butt" went out of fashion for us.
But the fat chick has VD. Now what do you do?
When my brother and I were young, we used to call each other names (which I won’t repeat here), and sometimes we didn’t really know what they meant.
When we found out, we promptly stopped calling each other those names in public.
Private might be a different matter!
That's a pity, but then again you aren't giving talks at CPAC either.
Are you using the term vulgar in the common or the ivory tower sense?
I wasn't aware there was any difference. My meaning seemed clear to me -- either word is what might be called a "swear" word. They are not things polite people say. They are things your mother would give you hell for saying when you were a child. Vulgar. Not fit for civilized use.
In addition to being vulgar and "swear" words, the two particular examples you give are also fighting words. They are insults.
I fail to see the need to use such language.
Regardless, my point is that the two words should have different societal taboo.
Why is that? Cause you disapprove of homosexual behavior?
So do I, I consider it immoral. That doesn't mean one needs to use vulgar and insulting language. It makes you look like a cretin.
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.