"Why do you think her words were wrong?" Because they were a personal attack -- they had no relevance to Edward's policies.
"Again, you make comments without stating your reason or logic. Is your opinion more important than objectively looking at the total picture?" I am looking at this objectively. Jim Robinson has a higher standard for decorum on Free Republic -- or at least that is the disclaimer on his site -- than he has for Ann Coulter at a CPAC convention. (We're not talking about a backyard BBQ. We're talking about a public forum where our prospective presidential nominees are being featured.)
"You seem to want everything to fit into your perfect world. You and others should not condemn Ann Coulter's words, but you can certainly disagree with them, and should give your reasons for doing so." 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.
"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. 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.
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 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.