Why, because calling someone a dry drunk is so much worse than calling them a faggot?
In all seriousnes, do you not see how you're contradicting yourself? You say we "can't allow [the] enemy to fight by his rules while [we] fight with mittens on and expect to win" (post 53) but then you say that she is not using the same tactics as the enemy, and in fact it is outrageous that I've said she is. Well, which is it, should we fight like the enemy, or should we be like Ann who (accoriding to you) would do no such thing? I know it's probably hard to read your computer screen from up on your high moral horse, but pick a position, wouldyaplease?
First of all, Ann is not RR and she is not running for any office that I know of. Second, this isn't 1980. Things have changed substantially since then.
I wasn't talking about her running for office, I was talking about advancing the conservative cause. Why did Ronald Reagan succeed so magnificently?
Third, you don't really understand the point she was making which was about "Semantic Totalitarianism" of which you are either a victim or a perpetrator.
I do understand, but just because you understand what someone was doing and agree with their larger point doesn't mean it's a good tactic.
Let's see if you really believe what you're saying with all the conviction you send across. If someone had asked her about Obama, and she had said "I can't really talk about him because white people aren't allowed to use theword [N-Word]", would that have been OK with you, yes or no?
I think you miss the point. The rule is, the Left has no rules and the Right must follow some strict code of conduct that is constantly changing. The Left gets to define, on the fly, what the Right can and can not say. Too many on the Right accept this game and these rules and they will never, ever win that way.