Ann is twice the man they could ever hope to be, it's no wonder she can't find a 'strong' man to marry these days.
Posted on 03/05/2007 12:51:58 AM PST by kristinn
Lancey Howard wrote: "You cannot be nasty enough to the people whose agenda is to turn America into a Euro-style, secular-socialist welfare state by undermining the traditional family unit, belittling traditional American values, and creating government addicts by offering "free" stuff the way slimy drug pushers do."
When you put it like that...
Seriously, being nasty doesn't win us many new converts. It tends to drive many people away.
By calling H. Clinton "Hitlery" you are trivializing the horrors of the Holocaust and demeaning all were killed or banished to the concentration camps.
Original post:With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees. At a reception for college students held by the Young America's Foundation, I lambasted the substitution of stupid slurs for persuasion-- be it "faggot" from a conservative or "gook" from a liberal--and urged the young people there to conduct themselves at all times with dignity in their ideological battles on and off campus.
Recovering_Democrat responds: Whoa. If a single word could do that much damage, then I think we're giving too much power to the work of a single word. Could it be that we're focusing too much ON a single word and not enough on the entire BODY of work and research someone has done for conservatism?
Did liberals throw out Jackson after "hymie-town"? Nope. That jerk is as strong as ever.
Did liberals throw out AlGore after "no controlling legal authority" horsecrap? Nope.
How about Clinton after his violated an intern with his cigar and sucked on it? Nope.
The fact is, some conservatives are willing to just kick a fellow conservative for a single line--think Trent Lott, think Ann Coulter, I'm sure you can think of others...and by thus doing join the liberals in lambasting one of our own.
That is a stupid move. Coulter does a hell of a job pointing out Democrat hypocrisy and inconsistencies. And she ought to be applauded for such, not run down because she tells a politically incorrect JOKE, for goodness sake.
Recovering_Democrat responds elsewhere:
Man, oh man, did any of these people aspiring to be lovers of this country ever read Thomas Paine or Sam Adams??? Like they were milquetoasts.
Ann makes her remarks in the context of greater political debate and the bulk of her research is ignored. She makes a comedic line and gets tons of attention.
How about the left wing's great comedic heroes: George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, or Richard Pryor? These guys are lionized by the left and they routinely used insulting language--but because Ann is conservative, she's forbidden to use an occasional jab while trying to make a point??!
John Edwards is a big boy. He can take it, can't he? Or is it beyond the pale to rip a guy who cares more about how his hair and moles look than if he's putting too big a "carbon assprint" on the earth with his huge McMansion??
Another RD post regarding Ann Coulter:
Waa. waa. I don't wanna hear any more whining from these crybabies. Utter friggin' CRYbabies.
They are ALL FOR freedom of speech except when THEIR ox gets gored.
I want more liberals to decry "hymie town" by Jesse Jagmo.
I want more liberals to decry the "Bush is a gangster" crap by Sharpton. I want more liberals to decry Al Gore's speech in Saudi Arabia where he said we DENIED Arabs their civil rights.
I want more liberals to decry Louis Farakhan's anti-Jew anti-Christian hate speech.
I want more liberals to decry the filth that spews out of Hollywood every damn day.
No, they'd rather concentrate on one line given in a humorous context in a political speech. THAT kind of speech for them crosses the line.
I tell you what, I am SO glad I am not a Democrat anymore. They really are such punky whiners. Really, it is nauseating.
Ann is twice the man they could ever hope to be, it's no wonder she can't find a 'strong' man to marry these days.
Why am I having trouble believing you guys are all about the high road?
Goodness...it's 4 in the morning.
The democrat party should beg America's forgiveness for Howard Dean, who brought us a new low in civil discourse. "Ya-hee!"
Ann Coulter raises the intellectual level of any debate she's in...Go Ann!
Of course it's not ok. Still, why do we clamor to join the lowest common denominator?
I'm with Irish Rose, it was a tasteless remark.
During my tour in Germany, I visited Dachau and Flossenburg twice each. As much as I despise the Clintons, they should never be mentioned in the same breath as Adolf Hitler.
Injecting Reductio ad Hitlerum into the conversation is intellectual laziness.
What we want more than anything is a brokered Rat convention, where nobody's got the majority of the delegates to be nominated. That guarantees a controversial nominee who will have trouble with stalwarts from their own party, let alone those from the mushy middle.
Just what the hell is "Dago Pimp Gewliani" supposed to mean?
Okay thanks, I see your point.
Perhaps now President will refer to H. Clinton as "Hitlery."
I would be proud to go to rehab with any of you anytime
I've seen nothing to change my opinion and other than a bit of two-faced two-step this is all much ado about nothing
.
Okay thanks, I see your point.
Perhaps now President Bush will refer to H. Clinton as "Hitlery."
Agreed - Well done to Ann exposing the RINO's within the Republican party. Playing nice with liberals only emboldens them - it does not defeat them!
>>Anyone who attacks Ann Coulter is not a conservative. They might say they are but they aren't.<<
We shouldn't elevate any individual to that level but maybe you didn't mean it that way.
It is all right to critique anyone's strategy.
I've said in the past when I didn't think Ann was being helpful to conservatives.
In this case CPAC knows she says things like this and put her in a prominent position. Of course she was going to say SOMETHING that would upset some people. Its almost as if CPAC wanted a distraction from their straw poll that would have been the big news otherwise...
But what we are talking about is whether we allowed to speak a word. This is one of the major free speech issues of the day. Just recently, when a girl was being peppered with anti-Mormon attacks she used the word "gay" in response and she was the one punished not the kids who started it. Ann endorsed a Mormon candidate and then used a similar word. She made her point.
If she is banned it will make her point even louder and better.
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.