RobertCSampson on March 7, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Now we just need to convince the PC police within the conservative movement. But honestly, if they can’t figure this out, they wont be conservatives for very long. They will remove themselves from conservatism through stubborness. And fear of what the liberals might say about them if they open their mouths.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

The whole affair surrounding Ann Coulter outing John Edwards has reached the point of hilarity for me. Liberal blogs are losing what was left of their collective mind, demanding that almost every conservative denounce Coulter….

His obvious target was Bush, not the troops.

Uh, Mark? Bush stayed in school, got degrees from Harvard and Yale, better grades than Kerry and was elected POTUS. So how is the “Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.” crack an obvious knock on Bush? 2 Ivy League degrees and he’s the freaking President. By anyone’s measure, that’s doing pretty well, isn’t it?

The Left & Right in this country are moving farther apart every day. Go back and read about the long, long, lead up to the civil war. Does it sound familiar?

TheBigOldDog on March 7, 2007 at 6:36 AM

I agree, but for the most part the right has remained static, while the left has moved into insane extremism. There are a few of us that want to move further to the right which in effect shifts the center back to the right. These “lead by example” conservatives, like most ideologs, believe their position is percieved as the center. HA!!! The center is perceived by america as the halfway point between the extreme left and the extreme right. When the extreme right is “lead by example” then the center is perceived to be waaaaaay to the left of where these conservatives have convinced themselves it is.

The finel segment of their erroneous thinking is centered on how the american people feel verses how they act when the PC monster is in play. We all know that most americans are conservative, but why don’t conservative candidates win all elections?

Because the PC beast cowers people into acting against their values because of the fear of being politically incorrect.

Ann is the slayer of the beast and those who oppose her, trash her, focus on the word and not the message, are feeding the beast along with the beasts owners (the liberals).

Absolutely true. But conservatives aren’t doing that, as is evident in this Ann Coulter flap.

I missed how the above comment of mine turned into Ghandi, but I was speaking to the division within the conservative movement. Here we have Ann working towards the goal of a conservative america, but we have an entire segment of conservatives, including three candidates, rejecting her using PC speech. They are furthering the tactics of the left, by denouncing her for the word faggot, missing her context, and refusing to reaffirm her message against PCness.

Conservatives are split. Now these holier than thou conservatives aren’t split, but with all their PC action and words, what have they accomplished?

I have asked that question several times from these conservatives and I haven’t gotten NOT ONE REPLY listing the accomplishments using their “lead by example” tactics. I, on several occasions, have listed the motivating results of Ann’s tactics. The same is true with Rush, Reagan, etc. I have also shown how the left has taken the center away from us, and how conservatives are complicit.

I am still waiting and as long as those conservatives continue to be silent with the edvidence of their successes, their “lead by example” rhetoric is a waste of energy, because those of us whom they think are damaging the party, are never going to be swayed. Their argument is much like a fart in the wind. It has no substance and it stinks like crap.

Sorry if I got off the ghandi topic.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. All this fuss over words!

I don’t see the point of needless vulgarity, but neither do I see the problem with using mere words, apart from the potential, as is the case here, of communicating things that you didn’t want to.

Figger and naggot (I’d use the eeevil words, but I don’t want to get caught by some overactive text parser) are just dopey words.

Don’t let the PC police win this one, folks. Like the Muhammed cartoons, either all the pejoratives are cool, or they’re all off-limits.

To give you an idea, let’s ban the words: chalk, honky ghost, marshmallow, whitey, and milk not only as they pertain to Caucasians, but in their original context as well, because they ALWAYS offend me.

See where we’re headed?

Which leads to the next question, which is “Do you think that we here in the U.S. have finally descended to the depths of Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan?

You missed the point a bit. The issue is, it works against decent, honest, sympathetic opponents and you are appealing to their emotions, their highest ideals. As you pointed out, the ball was advanced 90-yards by the spilling of a lot of blood. The last 10-yards were earned by civil disobedience 100 years later.

The Left & Right in this country are moving farther apart every day. Go back and read about the long, long, lead up to the civil war. Does it sound familiar?

Exit question: What’s worse: John Kerry calling our troops dumb or Ann Coulter’s use of “faggot.”

Ann meant to say what she said; Kerry messed up his joke. His obvious target was Bush, not the troops. So it doesn’t really compare.

To be honest, I don’t think Ann’s remark was anti-gay, I really don’t.

She says she meant it to mean “wimp.” That’s like calling a gentile a “kike” and saying that you just meant that they were cheap. Wouldn’t you call that antisemitic?

No, it’s not. It worked in those cases because it was being used against opponents who had a basic sense of Christian fairness and justice to begin with…

Try Civil disobedience in a place like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan…

TheBigOldDog on March 6, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Which leads to the next question, which is “Do you think that we here in the U.S. have finally descended to the depths of Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan?” Because if we have, then we no longer have any option other than General Sherman’s doctrine of “total war.” I’m not quite ready to believe that about America just yet. Are you?

Yes, you can call me a faggot for poor posting skills, I won’t cry.

BTW, ALLAH, where is the preview button (you;ve had months to help us slow folks, what’s up??? Are you too busy wathcing the View and disparaging your audience??)

href=”http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coloreds”>

So… you’re equating Edward’s fixation with grooming to opposing the Vietnam war? Or are you saying that words have the same meaning forever and ever and “faggot” still means “bundle of sticks” in every situation…

You can’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. To pretend that something isn’t unacceptable now because people used to say it 30 and 40 years ago is stupid and wouldn’t justify my going around calling people “coloreds”.

Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Great….now I can’t use the word “coloreds”

Absolutely true.

No, it’s not. It worked in those cases because it was being used against opponents who had a basic sense of Christian fairness and justice to begin with. The struggle for equality of African Americans began 100 years earlier in the CHURCHES of America… Ghandi’s approach only worked against Great Britain. It didn’t work against his own population which descended into civil war, partition and his assassination.

Try Civil disobedience in a place like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and we’ll see the results being passed out on DVD snuff films in Peshawar.

I’m not the one hanging around here making ignorant comments about how there isn’t anything here that’s worth a damn. If you think that way, why the hell are you still here?? Didn’t realize we were all here to please you, your royalness.

Well, now you do. Get with the program;)

Such dissent nowadays is in the face of a large moonbat plurality which is far removed from civilized discourse.

Good point.

Liberals are not to be debated, reasoned with, understood or tolerated. Liberals are to be defeated and laughed at.

Hmmm…dissent. I suppose that you might convince me that it is a key ingredient in the struggle. However, I should also remind you, at this point, that Mahatma Ghandi (and Martin Luther King Jr. after him) proved that dissent is most effective when it is carried out on a massive scale (with countless participants). These men also proved that dissent does not need to be violent, nor does it necessarily need to adopt the tactics of the enemy — it only needs to be unified, homogenious, ubiquitous, and stalwart. What say you?

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM

It helps to remember that both Ghandi and MLK were leading dissent against civilized, reasonable populations, the former against the British, the latter against a U.S. society in which the moonbat left was tiny and marginalized.

Such dissent nowadays is in the face of a large moonbat plurality which is far removed from civilized discourse.

Same, or safe. (need my coffee, LOL)

Jim Treacher on March 6, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Don’t look at me – I’m busy carrying water.

(How many keyboards – heh.)