ab39abc304284c630686…

Nothing is more pathetic than when conservatives engage in superficial Poltically Correct Sanctimonious High Horsedness.

VinceP1974 on March 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Pablo’s their poster boy and spokesman.

You are treating my use of a word in the way you want to understand it so it will seem contradictive.

Yeah, it’s awful of me to apply the actual definitions of words to your use of them, exposing the contradictory, inconsistent nature of your statements. It’s my fault that you’re talking in circles, obviously.

When you are ready to apologize, I’ll engage you again.

So you won’t talk to me ever again? Sweet!

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 5:56 PM

You don’t get anything Pablo. You’ve either got you head in the sand or you are being purposely obtuse. You are treating my use of a word in the way you want to understand it so it will seem contradictive.

I know what I meant, I used the words. You refuse to allow me to define my own speech so you can force me into your desired definition. Like it or not, that is pushing the PC agenda, and you have become the poster child for the PC conservative.

When you are ready to apologize, I’ll engage you again.

I’m saying that hyperventilating over it makes you a thin-skinned wuss. Or a baby. Probably both. There’s a lot of whining, sobbing, and hand-wringing going on here. That’s wuss territory. And baby territory.

Making a big deal about Ann’s comment at all is pretty much wuss territory.

At the very least, it’s going emo about something that doesn’t matter.

Unless you’re a thin-skinned wuss.

Somebody might get their feelings hurt.

Waaaah!

Because your premise is wrong. Your have demonstrated that the public schools have been successful in indoctrination of PC hate speech being off limits.

Next stop, criminal prosecution for words that are offensive, don’t not laugh a pastor in Canada got 30 days and $3000 dollar fine for just quoting the bible in a newspaper.

ScottyDog on March 6, 2007 at 5:04 PM

If my premise is wrong, yours is just as wrong. I didn’t get my premise in public school. For one, I went to a private school. Less nitpicky and more meaningfully, I got it in Sunday school… in a rather evangelical church in the heart of the Bible belt.

Beyond the basis of scripture, your argument is flawed in that religious speech and hate speech are two totally different subjects, unless the Canadian pastor was using the Bible to harass a bunch of people by telling them that they were all hellbound. Even then, is the motive hate?

I get my indignation from, among other places, Matthew 5:22. Christ’s words exemplify what I tried to say in my earlier rant. Christ says “fool” instead of the word in question, but I somehow doubt that Christ would split that hair. Then, there’s Romans 14 and/or 1 Corinthians 8. Ann claims to be a Christian; in that context, EVEN IF it is okay for some who call themselves Christians to use hate speech, by this premise, she should not use it around those who would be offended.

Furthermore, check 1 Corinthians 6:12. Maybe it’s legal for us to use hate speech… but what’s the point? Finally, there are several points that could be made from the book of James about the tongue being the downfall of those who claim to believe.

I realize I have made the leap of understanding in assuming that, ScottyDog, you are a Christian. I assume that by your citing the instance of the Canadian pastor’s jailing. If you are a Christian, please review your thoughts in light of these passages. For those who do not profess a faith that binds them to a moral standard, I can see why Ann’s words are less of an issue.

I’m done with this topic… I’m sick of it. Onto Scooter Libby’s demise, speaking of intrusions on free speech!

Are you saying that Michelle and Bryan are thin-skinned wusses?

Are you saying that objecting to Coulter’s remark makes you a thin skinned wuss? If you’re not saying that, what are you trying to say?

Oops.

Rehab.

“Interesting.”

Are you saying that Michelle and Bryan are thin-skinned wusses?

Hey, a thin-skinned wuss is a perfect example of someone worthy of the label “f@ggot!”

So…..you’re saying Michelle and Bryan are faggots?

Interesting.

There are millions of them out there voting for socialist policies and non-conservative politicians. “Republican” hasn’t been synonymous with “conservative” for a long, long time. There are a lot of conservative Republicans, but there are also a lot of non-conservative Republicans. Just being less of a wacked out leftist than a lot of Demokrats doesn’t make you a conservative. PC and ultra-PC are both bad, just as big government and huge government are both bad.

And being a thin-skinned wuss is both bad and disgusting. Hey, a thin-skinned wuss is a perfect example of someone worthy of the label “f@ggot!”

If I meant RINO, I would have said RINO. I’m beginning to see that you are having diffuculty with this concept.

What I said was to be construed as a conservative that just isn’t as committed, which is a long way from being a republican in name only.

I get it now. A semi-fake, pretend conservative can also be a totally bitchin’ Republican. And anyone who objects to the use of the word “faggot” on the stage as CPAC just isn’t as committed a conservative, but may also be a full fledged Republican. Thanks for the clarification.

flutejpl on March 6, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Because your premise is wrong. Your have demonstrated that the public schools have been successful in indoctrination of PC hate speech being off limits.

Next stop, criminal prosecution for words that are offensive, don’t not laugh a pastor in Canada got 30 days and $3000 dollar fine for just quoting the bible in a newspaper.

As far as Michelle’s bleep goes, would I want my ten year old saying it? No. Would I care if my twenty year old said it? Nah. Do I think any less of her for saying it? Nah. Have I said it? Absolutely, to my shame. Do I have any? Read on and be the judge of that; I hope I don’t get banned.

The whole point of all the talk regarding Ann’s bomb is that THIS particular word is at an entirely different level of vulgarity. To demonstrate my point, I could drop the 4-letter f-bomb out of frustration, say, for instance, “F—, it’s cold today!” Nobody gets hurt. If you live with me in NJ, you’d surely agree, in fact. If I say “F— YOU!” and point a finger, though, somebody’s getting hurt. Being a weakling myself, I’d probably be the one getting hurt, eating my words as a knuckle sandwich. If I say “F— (insert entire group of people here) at a venue at which some of them surely will hear about it,” I risk inciting a riot. With some vulgarities, context is everything.

The whole point people like me have been trying to make is that the 6-letter f-bomb’s offensive nature is so woven into its modern definition that offending an entire group with its usage is unavoidable no matter what. FORGET CONTEXT. Ann might as well have said, and I make it absolutely clear that this paraphrase is utterly condemnable if one actually meant it in the slightest way, “I’d criticize Obama, but, the moment you say n—–, you have to go to rehab.” On the level of offensiveness, that is no different than what Ann actually said. She still could have meant the same joke had she said those exact words, but would it matter? NO!

Some words are offensive only to the ears: balls. Some words can be offensive to just the ears or to souls as well given the context: f—. Other words are offensive to ears and to souls all the time: f—–, n—–, etc. Ann crossed that line by using such a loaded word at such a loaded venue, and she risked taking an entire conference off topic and has lined a slip and fall lawyer’s pockets in the process. That’s why some of us are screaming as we are. Why can’t people understand this? /rant

My kids heard you say BALLS on O’Reilly, I was not amused! Some role model?

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 8:49 AM

If I meant RINO, I would have said RINO. I’m beginning to see that you are having diffuculty with this concept.

What I said was to be construed as a conservative that just isn’t as committed, which is a long way from being a republican in name only.

That is true, but to attack her for using a word in a context in a way she did not use it, is a serious breech in conservative values. That is carrying the pc water for the libs.

csdeven is absolutely right: the letter is both a serious breach of conservative values and carrying water for the Left. It resembles the massive, public, politically correct mea culpa so beloved by the communists. Cultural marxism is taking over the debate in American politics by attrition. In five years, there will be no discernable difference, intellectually, between the Right and the Left.

seejanemom: Don’t shriek in public. It’s unbecoming.

I received an email this morning that I think is worth sharing insofar as it -- along with my reply -- crystallizes certain of my positions on speech and lays them quite bare. Under the subject line "Ann Coulter," "esmyth…

JEEEZ. READ CRITICALLY OR KEEP YOUR PIEHOLE SHUT!!