Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Support of Ann Coulter
Monday, March 5, 2007 | Kristinn

Posted on 03/05/2007 12:51:58 AM PST by kristinn

It is with growing dismay and frustration that I am watching so many of my friends and acquaintances in the conservative community attack Ann Coulter for her comments pointing out that saying the word 'faggot' can get you sent to a rehabilitation clinic.

That she said it in the context of primping pretty boy Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards has sent conservatives to the fainting couch in an episode of 'why I never!' mass hysteria.

Ann Coulter has walked point for conservatives for almost a decade. She has been assaulted, threatened and stalked. She requires bodyguards for protection. Liberals believe they are justified in physically attacking Ann. I heard one say so at CPAC--not in response to her rehab joke, but because Ann 'insults people.'

Ann has been an early and loyal friend of Free Republic. She is one of the few prominent conservatives who regularly breaks bread with FReepers. Her friendship is now being repayed by FReepers who want her driven out of conservatism.

That so many conservatives want Ann banned from CPAC is a sad indicator of the state of conservatism. It is not Ann Coulter's fault that Republicans lost both houses of Congress. It is not Ann Coulter's fault that President Bush is not popular. Sacrificing Ann Coulter on the altar of political correctness will not win the elections of 2008 nor will it prevent conservatives from being sent to rehab for uttering politically incorrect words and ideas.

After Ann uttered the words that have given so many conservatives the vapors, the line for her booksigning at CPAC was just as long as usual. I know, I was standing in that line. If CPAC attendees were so outraged about Ann's remarks, it was not manifested there. I didn't learn about the controversy until I read about it online later that night.

I spent the next day at CPAC. Ann's remarks were not a hot topic. I know because the only time I heard it talked about was when I brought it up. Those I spoke with about it were not upset.

I do not wish to speak ill of my friends and acquaintances who are dumping on Ann, other than to express my disappointment. I do wish they'd reconsider and stop attacking a friend who has walked point for them. Liberals must be laughing themselves silly as they watch us take out someone they've been wanting to eliminate for years.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; coulter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381 next last
To: ReignOfError
Would you be pleased if your child called a classmate a faggot?

Depends on how old my child is. If my child is an adult than he can face the music that he plays. I'm not going to demand that he retract what he said. He has as much right to free speech as you or I do. If people make stupid statements it is there reputation that suffers and not mine. I guess personal responsibility went the way of Rome when government started passing laws that constrict free speech.

341 posted on 03/06/2007 5:33:00 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

Thanks for your posts. Well said.


342 posted on 03/06/2007 6:27:09 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
What is it with you guys and your hysterical hyperbole? This has nothing to do with the government. This is about individuals responding to public comments. If I don't like what the Dixie Chicks have to say, then I choose not to buy their albums and/or complain to their sponsors. There doesn't have to be government oversight in order for there to be some sort of accountability. All you guys have done is point to the left and say, "they did this or they did that" ---- as if a failure by the lefties to hold their spokespeople accountable (read: condemn their actions) justifies such behavior by our side.

"Are you appointing certain people to be authorized spokespeople for the GOP?" Again, spare me the hysterics. I'm an individual taking issue with a spokesperson who, like it or not, is seen as representing conservatives, if not the GOP.

"So if I say something that is in your mind derogatory are you going to demand an apology?" If you paid attention to my very first post to you, you would be aware that this isn't about demanding an apology. It is about making it known that Ann's words do not represent all conservatives. Judging from the candidates who are running from her, that seems to be a common reaction.

Now, if you said something derogatory as a representative of Free Republic, I might indeed take issue with you. I wouldn't demand an apology --- nor have I demanded one from Ann. But I would make it clear that your actions don't represent Free Republic. Free Republic does have a code requiring civility --- but I don't know how seriously that is enforced. I'm guessing the policy is more symbolic than substantive.

This isn't about being a "word meister" for every derogatory word uttered by individual citizens. If you want to teach your kids to call other kids "faggots" on the playground, go right ahead. ( I'm sure the other mommies will be impressed -- just don't do it under the banner of conservatism.)

"Besides, who says your opinion is right? Everyone has an opinion and yours certainly is not going to agree with everyone." No kidding! I'm just surprised to see so many "Christian" conservatives proudly take up the banner of personal attacks! Heaven forbid I should presume it is "right" to oppose personal attacks. Wouldn't want to offend anybody by drawing a line between right and wrong, would we?
343 posted on 03/06/2007 6:29:17 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: TChad

Glad to see re-enforcements! Now, tag, you're it! When I get to the point of referring a poster back to my initial post, I know we're talking in circles.


344 posted on 03/06/2007 6:30:36 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

So it is o.k. to have a presidential candidate who dresses up like a girl, marched in pervert parades and lived with two homosexuals???


345 posted on 03/06/2007 6:32:31 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

So it is o.k. to have a presidential candidate who dresses up like a girl, marched in pervert parades and lived with two homosexuals???


346 posted on 03/06/2007 6:32:32 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: donna; pissant; kristinn
Am I the only one who thinks Ann, in an exquisitely executed statement, revealed the craven hypocrisy of her "conservative" audience, which is preparing to embrace Rudy, who is the crown jewel of the gay lobby?

An exquisitely executed question....
347 posted on 03/06/2007 6:39:49 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Now, tag, you're it!

Um, uh, well, er, that would mean I'd have to put down this popcorn, and...

When I get to the point of referring a poster back to my initial post, I know we're talking in circles.

Some people just require a lot of repetition. Nothing wrong with the occasional copy and paste! You go girl!

Munch, munch, munch.

348 posted on 03/06/2007 6:43:46 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance; pissant; kristinn
"Am I the only one who thinks Ann, in an exquisitely executed statement, revealed the craven hypocrisy of her "conservative" audience, which is preparing to embrace Rudy, who is the crown jewel of the gay lobby?"

An exquisitely executed question....

Yes it was...

349 posted on 03/06/2007 7:08:02 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
It's just rude, and does not earn the medal you want to pin on Ann Coulter.

You need to learn context. Being former military, I know about medals, and I never said she needed a medal. You need to remember...she isn't running for any office! Her job as a columnist/commentator is to expose the left. She has. In the process, she has also exposed the weak-kneed side of the GOP.

But she was the closing speaker for a group of people who want to win election and run the government.

Again...she's not running for office.

It's really very simple. Winning elections requires attracting people. Repelling people is not a productive strategy.

Yeah, and most people are attracted to straight shooters, not PC meely-mouths. If the GOP is just the Ivy league high brows, then you repel a HUGE base.

Yes, I do. Do you believe that when teenaged punks spray-paint swastikas on a synagogue, the teens should be congratulated for their courage and the Jews should be told to get over it?

First, thank you for your honesty. Second, thanks for showing how off the wall your idea is. Spray painting any property is a crime, and that crime should be punished. No one should get more time for spray painting a synagogue over a library. Hate crime legislation attempts to judge what a person is thinking and punish the unknowable. If I murder someone, the punishment shouldn't vary on the color of the victims skin. Murder is murder. Vandalism is vandalism. Very liberal thinking you have.

Apparently, to you, "keepin' it real" means being rude and abusive. in a couple of paragraphs, you've gonr from decrying gangsta rap culture to embracing it.

That's where you fail to realize what goes on in the real world. I don't embrace the gangsta culture. In fact I'm trying to raise my kids to be completely out of that kind of world. However, I'm also preparing them for the real world where the gangstas live. Do I throw around the words faggot, nigger, kike, etc. everyday, around my family, or in good company?...no. Am I afraid to use them when pointing out the falsehoods in liberal America in a political debate?...No.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask at least as much of our political leaders as we ask of our third-graders.

You need to recognize context. Ann isn't running for office. 2)If my children pose a joke about not being able to use the word faggot in describing someone or else they would need to go to rehab....I would laugh. That would mean that they understand more about our PC messed up culture than you.

Sincerely
350 posted on 03/06/2007 7:10:50 PM PST by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
It was like the entire career of Andrew "Dice" Clay.

Wow, lady. You really have no clue about who Ann Coulter is, do you? Well that's fine. In your social tea's you can put down Ann as a coarse hick, and feel all good about being a sophisticated Republican. Just remember on Primary day...anybody but a RHINO. (That would include Rudy and McCain.)
351 posted on 03/06/2007 8:01:36 PM PST by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

Sniveling twits are highly upended by the cacaphony of fatuous liberal umbrage at The Lady Ann's satirical remarks.


352 posted on 03/06/2007 8:05:42 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Either the 'conservative outrage' is being expressed by libs operating 'undercover' or the Reagan revolution is caput!


353 posted on 03/06/2007 8:08:37 PM PST by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
Wow, lady.

That's about as accurate as your other guesses.

You really have no clue about who Ann Coulter is, do you?

Um, yeah. She's a writer and "pundit" who has made a career of being as provocative as possible.

Well that's fine. In your social tea's you can put down Ann as a coarse hick

It's amusing to me how much stuff you make up. You are apparently convinced that I'm an Ivy-league society matron. I am, in fact, a 36-year-old short fat Southern man whose preferred beverage is whiskey -- but #2 is iced tea, so you got me there.

I would never describe Ann Coulter as a hick. That would be grossly unfair to hicks, who usually have some sense of decorum. She is in kindest terms a shrill Yankee.

354 posted on 03/06/2007 8:55:38 PM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
The difference, though, is I don't think you found too many liberals rallying to Sistah Soljah's defense.

A few folks did, not mainstream public figures, but hip-hoppers and Farakkhan types. Many of them didn't endorse the message, but claimed it had been taken out of context and inflated by the media -- does that sound familiar?

355 posted on 03/06/2007 9:03:56 PM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
"Why do you think her words were wrong?" “Because they were a personal attack -- they had no relevance to Edward's policies.” In my opinion, it was not a personal attack, it was a joke and a play on a word deemed politically incorrect. To me, you and others reacted emotionally to a word that you did not like and did not understand the full intent of her joke and comments.

“I am looking at this objectively.” My opinion is that you reacted emotionally and attacked the speaker instead of the idea she expressed. This forum is about expressing ideas and defending them logically. Why is your opinion objective? Why does your opinion have a higher value (so that Ann’s ideas cannot be expressed)?.

Why can't I condemn them? If I think they are incendiary, I can condemn them, just as anyone can. "To disagree" suggests there is a debate about the subject matter -- as if we are debating whether or not Edwards is a "faggot." To condemn is to say this isn't a matter of disagreement -- "faggot", in this context, is an crude word which should be condemned as a part of public discourse. In your opinion, the way Ann used the word to make a point was “crude”. Aren’t you just reacting based on the word used and your emotions? Your opinion that her words are incendiary as to incite violence seems to be over the top. Did you listen to her whole speech or only the part that the media has hyped? Did she say it as a joke (and her speech was a series of jokes) or did she intentionally with malice insult Edwards or the actor who actually used the word? Perhaps she was the messenger and just repeating words that others have used and made a very significant point (in the form of a joke) about political correctness.

"Ann is very capable of explaining her reasoning, and if people listen and understand they would see the positive logical thoughts behind her comments. I disagree that she has an uncivil tongue. I find her very thought provoking, but others react emotionally without comprehending what is really being said." We are all well aware of Ann's "logical thoughts". Yes, we are all well aware that this was a commentary on political correctness -- which could have easily been made without taking a personal shot at Edwards. It was a joke and not a malicious personal attack. (My guess is that Ann could be very vicious if she wanted to.) I guess it is Ok for Edwards to employee Catholic bashers until political pressure forced them to leave. Sometimes you have to level the playing field.

Amazing the kinds of words you can pass off under the guise of "logical thought." If you don't consider words like "raghead", "faggot", "harpies" etc. to be uncivil, that is entirely your right. I'm sure the teachers must love the colorful language of your kids. You react to the words and not the ideas. They are words and the words themselves are not uncivil. The use of the “proper words” does not make a group of people civilized, sometimes you need to communicate and get people’s attention with words that you do not like. Who should determine the “proper” words to use? Are you going to be the “Word Police’?

My standards, and it seems the standards of most of the conservative pundits on this issue, are a bit higher on what is considered "civil". I am glad that you have high standards and you don’t use such words, but don’t judge others (that is God’s role) that are trying to communicate ideas. I would like everyone to be kind to one another and to live in a perfect world. If the other side is fighting by street rules, then we could easily lose the fight if we insist on using Queensberry rules. We are fighting for survival and we need to stand behind our conservative values and principles.

356 posted on 03/06/2007 9:06:14 PM PST by ADSUM (Democracy works when citizens get involved and keep government honest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
You need to learn context. Being former military, I know about medals, and I never said she needed a medal.

A bit of hyperbole in my part. No, you did not say she deserved a medal. But you praised her courage and leadership, and those are things they give medals for. And I think the plaudits are unearned in Coulter's case.

You need to remember...she isn't running for any office!

She was the keynote speaker at CPAC, invited and sponsored by people who are running for office. This wasn't a column or a blog entry or a speech on a Carnival cruise. Most of those candidates are now distancing themselves from her comments.

Her job as a columnist/commentator is to expose the left. She has. In the process, she has also exposed the weak-kneed side of the GOP.

You say "weak-kneed," I say "principled." My first loyalty is to principle. I am loyal to my family and to my friends, but if it comes down to a question of helping a friend or doing right, I will choose the latter.

Again...she's not running for office.

And the folks who are running for office are also running from Ann. Big red flag right there.

Yeah, and most people are attracted to straight shooters, not PC meely-mouths. If the GOP is just the Ivy league high brows, then you repel a HUGE base.

You keep repeating that, but a view of history does not support it. Every president since 1988 has been an Ivy League alum. The "straight-shooters" have been a sideshow. The smooth-talkers win the day.

First, thank you for your honesty. Second, thanks for showing how off the wall your idea is. Spray painting any property is a crime, and that crime should be punished. No one should get more time for spray painting a synagogue over a library.

I disagree. Painting swastikas ona synagogue is not the same crime as painting "jimmy loves suzie" on a water tower. One is a teen prank, the other an act of terror and intimidation.

Hate crimes laws are more or less moot in serious felony cases. They are useful in heading kids off when they commit "letty" crimes, before they become felons.

Hate crime legislation attempts to judge what a person is thinking and punish the unknowable.

There is no novelty there. The difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter is entirely in the killer's head. Intent and motive are elements of the crime. If you committed a crime because you were in a strange situation that won't be repeated, it might be safe to let you out sooner; if you committed a crime because you hate black people, the odds are pretty good you'll se a black person again. Even if you move to Idaho.

If I murder someone, the punishment shouldn't vary on the color of the victims skin.

Hate crimes don't apply a simple formulation of the perp's and the victim's skin color. If the state claims a hate crime, that is another element it must prove at trial.

That's where you fail to realize what goes on in the real world. I don't embrace the gangsta culture. In fact I'm trying to raise my kids to be completely out of that kind of world. However, I'm also preparing them for the real world where the gangstas live. Do I throw around the words faggot, nigger, kike, etc. everyday, around my family, or in good company?...no. Am I afraid to use them when pointing out the falsehoods in liberal America in a political debate?...No.

And are you defending folks who use them? You are here.If you aren't amongst your children, good. Yes, I reject that. Emphatically.

357 posted on 03/06/2007 10:01:51 PM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

"( I'm sure the other mommies will be impressed -- just don't do it under the banner of conservatism.)"

Oh, so you are the banner carrier of the the conservatives. Nice to know someone has taken charge of monitoring the conservatives. Not unlike the demorats who have have also assigned themselves this oversight.

"Wouldn't want to offend anybody by drawing a line between right and wrong, would we?"

So you hold the grail as to what is right and what is wrong. Tell the demorats they can get back to the business they were elected to do instead of just pounding on conservatives for their actions. There now is a word monitor in charge. Sheesh.


358 posted on 03/06/2007 10:02:52 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Irish Rose
"I think she's brilliant. I also think she shouldn't have called John Edwards a derogatory and untruthful term like that. The views of this don't have to be extreme."

First, Ann didn't say that Edwards was a faggot, she just used the word in association with his name. Now, that's not exactly the same thing, but I can understand why it raised a few hairs.

However, if Ann was actually trying to say that Edwards is a queer, and if she is right, then the view wouldn't be "extreme," would it?

I'm envisioning a morph of an exchange I once saw in a Vice Presidential debate, when someone who reminds me of Barney Frank said something like: I knew John Edwards. John Edwards was a friend of mine. Sir, you're no John Edwards...
359 posted on 03/06/2007 10:12:47 PM PST by RavenATB (Patton was right...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RavenATB

Face it, half the Dem Party are jealous of Ann and would love to sleep with her. The other half are men.

Pray for W and Our Troops


360 posted on 03/06/2007 10:15:16 PM PST by bray (Redeploy to Tehran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson