IN WHICH I FEEL IT NECESSARY TO BURNISH MY CONSERVATIVE BONA FIDES SO THAT THE MOUTH BREATHING, SCROTUM SCRATCHING NINCOMPOOPS UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES A TRUE GENTLEMAN OF THE RIGHT
Not very gentlemanly words but as my sainted father used to say, when invited to a knife fight, bring a gun.
I am surprised, shocked, and in a towering rage over the reaction to my post from yesterday about the faggot remark made by She who shall remain nameless always and forever. Not from the left. Hell, for all their supposed smarts, the left is more predictable than a Chicago Cubs losing season and less original than cloned calf.
My beef is with the shallow, ignorant, remarkably stupid righties who not only defend Coulter, but cheer her on. Their explanations vary but center on the idea that she defies “political correctness” and anyone who criticizes her is just an old fuddy-duddy, politically correct priss.
And that’s not my only sin. Evidently, since some liberals agree with me, I have become unclean! I am no longer a “real conservative.” I am infused with lefty group think and am only trying to curry favor by groveling before my enemies begging for approbation.
I feel compelled to point out that I was a “real conservative” before most of these inbreds were in books. And “real conservatives” don’t demonstrate such towering ignorance as this commenter at Hot Air. A few brief excerpts:
Conservatism has lost already. Homosexuality is now accepted by all “right-thinking” people. Would everyone be this upset at someone who eats his own mucous being called a booger-eater? Homosexual behavior has become more pervasive and open in the past 2 decades. Is it going to dry up and go away just because we’re nice to homosexuals? Can one cure cancer by thinking happy thoughts? Are homosexuals rushing to get psychological treatment because they aren’t made to feel bad about their illness? The difference between the open and derisive bigotry against Southerners and against homosexuality, is that there’s nothing wrong with being Southern, but there is something wrong with being a sexual deviant.
Did I fall asleep and wake up in the 19th century? Or maybe even farther back? I think I see Torquemada rubbing his hands together in anticipation of racking the next homosexual who happens to fall into his grasp.
But wait! It gets even better:
The current political battle in the U.S. is no longer a struggle between two allied political parties. It is a battle for political control of the nation, akin to the battle that created the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Red China. Read some history as to how Rome went from Republic to Empire, and you might see some more parallels to the current political struggle in the U.S.
Civility is fine for a court of law, a debate society, or a normal political campaign. But that’s not what we’re fighting now. The war is between the America that was and the socialist cesspit that will be.
You may not be willing to hate the enemy, but they’re more than willing to hate us. One truthful, much maligned comment by Ms Coulter vs thousands of vitriolic hate-filled comments throughout the left and the MSM demonstrate the truth of that.
To borrow a line from Col. Robert Lee Scott: “You’ve got to learn to hate.”
A few months back, I did a post asking whether or not the left actually believes it when they compare Bush to Hitler. I concluded that yes indeed, they really do find common ground between Bush and a man who gassed 6 million Jews, murdered another couple of million, deliberately started a war that killed 80 million, and countenanced the existence of a massive state run terror apparatus that ruthlessly oppressed tens of millions living in captive nations.
Yep. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
Similarly, our righty friend here actually believes it when he says that America is a “socialist cesspool” and that our electoral battles can be compared to the struggle for power by the Commies in Russia and the fascists in Germany.
Such delusional thinking deserves recognition - and a quick trip to the asylum in a strait jacket.
But what really got my goat were some of the “conservatives” on an email list that I unsubscribed from this morning. Yesterday, I left this explanation as to why She who shall remain nameless always forever should be condemned:
The term she used hurts the feelings of other people - deeply. It scars them. It is not like me calling you an idiot or you calling me a dumbs**t. It is beyond that. It’s even beyond saying something very hurtful about your mother or father.
Most people recognize this. If it were just a question of insulting a lefty, I would be right there laughing with everyone else. And anyone who accuses me of being “politically correct” doesn’t read my stuff nor do they know me very well.
BUT THERE ARE LIMITS. THERE MUST BE. And Coulter has exceeded those limits. And not for any other cause except her own self-aggrandizement.
A few choice responses to my call for empathy:
1. I’ll be sure to keep a close eye on the suicide statistics among homosexuals in the next months, so as to not miss their reaction to this deeply scarring, emotionally destructive commonly used descriptor of a “wimp.â€
If we see a spike, I’ll consider revising my opinion.
2. I wasn’t going to comment on this at all, because I just don’t care. But I can’t let this go by without a quick comment:
“The term she used hurts the feelings of other people - deeply. It scars them.”
Oh puhlease. It does NOT. Get a grip. Gays calls themselves faggots, homos, queers, and queens all the time. If you try an tell me that I Edwards is at home cryin’ in his milk because of his deep emotional scars being called a faggot has bestowed upon him, you’ve got another think coming. He’s with his staff trying to figure out how to PC the crap out of this.
The day I care about a liberals’ feelings will be the day Muslims eat pigs.
3. Why is it okay for Maher to say we’d be better off if Cheney would have been killed by the Taliban, but Ann can’t call Edwards a “faggot?” I don’t get it. For so long, the right has been wanting for our people to go after the left the way THEY have been going after us! Now somebody does, and what? Ann’s gotta be scorned? I don’t go for it. Ann has the right to say what she wants to say.
4. An insult to homosexuals everywhere? The people screaming “We’re here, we’re queer” can’t handle being called faggots? I know it’s a ’slur’ but it’s the same thing as black people being able to call each other ‘nigga’ while any white person who mutters the word, even jokingly, will be castrated by the media.
Since when is faggot the new f-word? People saying “f*** Bush” get half as much attention as this.
What is the common denominator in all of these messages as well as others that I’ve seen both in the comments on my post and other posts?
The people making the comments have a dead spot where the empathy gene should be plugged in. The wiring that connects being able to gauge an emotional reaction to what you say to the part of the brain that handles communication is either non existent or burned out.
A marmoset has more empathy than these people. And I hasten to add that empathy is NOT political correctness. It is, as my previously sainted father told me, the surest sign of a gentleman.
Gentlemanliness may be something of an outmoded concept to some but there is much praiseworthy in aspiring to be a gentleman. Good manners, a solicitousness toward women and children, and a moral grounding in one’s life are all part of what should be the outward manifestation of an adult man’s personae. Indeed, it is an artificial construct but a vital one nonetheless. It greases the wheels of discourse if the person you are talking to knows when to listen and when to keep their mouth shut - something that is sorely lacking in political discourse today. And the only way to do that successfully is to be aware of the emotional temperature of the party with which you are discoursing.
For those brain dead righties who don’t quite understand what I’m trying to say, here it is in a nutshell; any insult you give that goes to the nub of who someone is; the color of their skin, their belief in whatever God they worship, the heritage from which they sprang, or the most personal and private part of an individual - their sexual identity - cleaves very deeply and causes the kind a psychic pain I daresay you would be loathe to experience. And is unnecessary to boot. Very rarely do any of those attributes in an individual bear upon the issues at hand. And even when they do, another gentlemanly characteristic - simple, common courtesy - should keep you from slinging that kind of mud.
I’m not saying that John Edwards was hurt by these remarks, That’s silly. Anyone running for President has skin so thick a jackhammer would have a hard time finding a vein to deliver an IV. But you are mistaken if you don’t believe that some gay people - perhaps many - experienced the kind of psychic pain I referred to above. That’s because she meant the term as an insult - and because she knew it would get a rise out her audience.
As far as answering the charge that I’m not a “real” conservative I’ll say this; anyone who thinks being a conservative is simply a matter of believing in low taxes, small government, a strong defense, and family values is shallow indeed. Yes, the culture needs defending from the ravages of the left - something I find common ground with social conservatives on a regular basis. But this defense of the culture should not and cannot come at the expense of people. If you decry the “homosexual lifestyle” are you not also railing against the people who practice it? Disagreeing with hate crime statutes and the idea of giving gays statutory protection under the Civil Rights Act are political issues. But accusing gays of being “sinners” and “deviants?” This is beyond the pale and should have no place in our political conversations.
Conservatism used to be about fighting for individual liberties against the creeping power of the state. It is not about using the power of the state to curtail people’s liberties you disagree with or disapprove of nor is it about trying to impose one set of values on everyone else. It is not “libertarianism” to believe the state should stay the hell out of people’s bedrooms - gay or straight - nor dictate who someone has the right to fall in love with. Nor should the state be peering over my shoulder while I’m enjoying classic porn at my favorite internet movie site. This kind of individual liberty should be a matter of agreement by all - left or right.
So I would say to those on the right who question my conservative credentials or believe that it is somehow too PC to weigh carefully how ones words are received by others that perhaps it is you who should re-examine your own beliefs for deviation from the path of conservative enlightenment.
Who knows? A little introspection on your part may yield surprising results.
UPDATE
Goldstein tackles the left for pompously calling on conservatives to denounce such untoward behavior:
Personally, I don’t feel any need whatever to issue public condemnations of Ann Coulter—though were you to ask me, I’d readily tell you that her remark was juvenile, and that it could well be seen as homophobic (though I am in no position to peer into Coulter’s soul; and of course, “faggotâ€â€”though tied to homosexuality—has long been wielded as a slur against masculinity, which has little to do with sexual preference, in much the same way “pussy†is used). And the reason I feel no need to publicly condemn Coulter is that Coulter has never spoken for me.
It is only the absurd idea—grounded in progressive identity politics—that conservatives (or in my case, classical liberals) so march in ideological and ethical lockstep that they are required, when one of their “own†steps out of line, to issue such ludicrous calls for “condemnation†and “distancing†in the first place.
And, as anyone who reads my site regularly knows, I champion the primacy of the individual, and so I react to such posts as Simianbrains—which are merely passive-aggressive attempts to police the kind of speech he finds offensive, while tethering it to a political position he finds unappealing—with what I believe to be an appropriate level of scorn.
Of course, your idea of an “appropriate level of scorn,” and my idea of an “appropriate level of scorn,” are quite a bit different than Mr. Goldstein’s.
Read the whole thing.
“IN WHICH I FEEL IT NECESSARY TO BURNISH MY CONSERVATIVE BONA FIDES SO THAT THE MOUTH BREATHING, SCROTUM SCRATCHING NINCOMPOOPS UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES A TRUE GENTLEMAN OF THE RIGHT”
Please tell me you are using parody to make a point before the “irony” brigade descends upon you.
Comment by h2o273kk9 — 3/4/2007 @ 12:57 pm
More proof that Ann really isn’t the sharpest knife in the shed…(see video)
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/ann-coulter-gets-owned.html
Comment by Minor Ripper — 3/4/2007 @ 1:53 pm
Sounds like you are not too much of a fan of the “nuthouses” in our political landscape. Which leads to some obvious questions about this site.
You express some very honorable sentiments. It is good to hear. Why is it a bit of a surprise to read such things in a place like this?
One wonders how the tone here, let alone in our political society at large, would be different if people would routinely connect with their better angels, and let those sentiments inform all of their writing. More please.
P.S. It has been a generation at least since (IMHO) conservatism has stood for individual liberties against the encroaching state. Unless, of course, you define indiviual liberties as the right to pay only a 35% top marginal tax rate as opposed to 39%. Or the right to build an arsenal of military-level assualt weaponry. In all other dimensions, it has been the conservatives who have been the enemies of individual libery in our recent history, beginning with those religious leaders who wish to mobilize the power of government to establish their values in law, and culminating in the Bush administration’s contempt even for that most essential of all individual liberty protections - the right of habeaus corpus. I suspect that the culminating is over yet, if these people are given the chance. It would be good to see you invovled in the resistance.
Comment by Tano — 3/4/2007 @ 2:08 pm
Just putting aside the civility aspect for a moment; from a strategic standpoint, blindly supporting whatever Coulter says is a disaster in waiting for conservatives, because as much as there may be talk radio, and weblogs, and podcasts, and other new ways of getting the conservative message out there, the fact remains conservatives do not control the media.
You can whine, pout, kick, scream, hold your breath and pound your fists on the floor while yelling that The New York Times, the major networks or the news weeklies don’t matter any more because people have alternative access, but they still do, because not everyone is a political junkie and seeks out alternative news sources. And what the big media outlets are going to take out of CPAC, thanks to Ann’s bon mot, is nothing about what happened at the conference other than Coulter dropped the alternative f-bomb, and because she was at CPAC, that means that CPAC attendees must support her comment. Not fair, but that’s the spin that is going to come out of the meeting (and fortunately, since most people aren’t political junkies, this comment will have little or no effect on the 2008 election. But a Coulter comment next year in a prominent setting could be the equivalent of Pat Buchanan’s 1992 speech at the RNC convention. Reagan spoke after Pat, but the media downplayed his remarks and zoned in on Pat’s comments and made them the so-called voice of the GOP going into the general election).
Michelle Malkin, who stirs up hatred from the left almost as badly as Coulter does, lays into Ann in a post this morning, questioning not only the effect of her statement, but why Coulter thought standing on a podium in front of hundreds of people at CPAC was an appropriate place to use that word. It will be interesting to see if Malkin comes under the same fire for not being a “true conservative” now that she’s taken Ann to the woodshed for hijacking the CPAC meeting with her remark. And she also shows Sean Hannity (Coulter’s biggest on-air media supporter), pretty much at a loss for words when asked his remarks on her statement.
I assume Fox is stuck with running Coulter’s pre-taped bit tonight on their “Half-hour News Hour”, but it will be interesting to see how they deal with her over the next couple of nights, either by calling her out on her comment or by giving her a pass and serving as an enabler for future comments that help her book sales, but hurt the chances of those she supposedly wants to see in office.
Comment by John — 3/4/2007 @ 3:25 pm
Coulter is a less obnoxious and hateful mirror on the right of ultra-left whack-jobs like Maher and Franken and those Huff’nPuff posters lamenting Cheney’s survival of an assassination attempt.
She merely made a nasty ad-hominem slur, in an inappropriate forum for such silly self-promoting grandstanding. But she sells books, and is much smarter than Maher and Franken [or the near-illiterate Krugman, parenthetically], who can’t sell their books, but have privileged platforms given by MSM lefties to peddle their hateful nonsense.
A slap on the wrist is appropriate for Coulter, but an investigation by the Secret Service should be in order for those publically inciting the murder of public officials over the airwaves or cable. Didn’t Alec Baldwin call for assassinating Henry Hyde back in ‘98 during the Clinton Impeachment on SNL or somewhere? Somehow, the far-left haters are exempt for accountability purposes, since everyone knows they are busted flushes, ne’er-do-wells, and overdosers on everything except reality.
Actually, Baldwin has become funny on his NBC series with Tina Fey, but the rest are predictably hateful and boringly predictable.
Comment by daveinboca — 3/4/2007 @ 4:44 pm
Come on Rick. What did my beloved Cubs do to be included with the likes of Ann ? Go Cubs.
Comment by rockdalian — 3/4/2007 @ 5:05 pm
Back from the Boonies
Chaperoned and led music at a church youth retreat this weekend. The snow interrupted the first part of the retreat, but we eventually got there and a fine time was had by all. As I was setting up song slides…
Trackback by Slublog — 3/4/2007 @ 7:00 pm
I don’t know but for some reason I get the feeling all you “real” conservative writers/bloggers wait until the consensus of opinion is in among yourselves before the piling on begins. Coulter made a derogatory comment she didn’t call anyone anything. You all kind of remind me of Bush puttin the boot to Trent Lott after he made a comment that hurt a few feelings. Hey politics has been an ugly business since day one and it isn’t going to change even by some “real” conservitives getting PC.
Comment by Michael Q — 3/4/2007 @ 8:49 pm
I don’t think this is about being PC; it’s about not being an ass. Or, as Rick put it, about being a gentleman.
Comment by jpe — 3/4/2007 @ 11:01 pm
Face it, for a significant number of Republicans the most important political subject in the world today is the sex lives of other people. Period.
These people are so excited by the image of a thin blonde woman insulting the sexuality of another man and “talking dirty†that all other considerations are eclipsed. Personally, I feel sorry for these people but I have no idea what kind of treatment would help them progress beyond the their state of arrested adolescence.
Comment by antiphone — 3/5/2007 @ 12:59 am
Conservatives Look for a Winning Hand
Each year for more than three decades, a handful of icons of the American conservative movement hav
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 3/5/2007 @ 6:45 am
Rick: Agree with you that it is not about PC, just about common decency. I don’t like Ann very much, but, next time, if she wants to be nasty, she should call someone she doesn’t like a pussy.
Comment by bird dog — 3/5/2007 @ 7:37 am
I agree that Coulter is vile. The last straw for me was when she attacked Kristen Brietweiser, a 911 widow.
I do disagree with you when you call to silence Ann. I say let her speak about her beliefs. Same thing goes for the crackpots on the left such as Bill Maher and Al Franken. I don’t want to silence them. I support their right to spew whatever political belief they have, just so long as they truley believe what they are saying and not just trying to get a reaction and attention with shock value.
I wouldn’t call or write HBO threatening to unsub if they don’t pull real time with Bill Maher from their programming. If Maher has the guts to compare cheney to Hitler and lament the fact that he wasn’t killed by the Taliban, then he should be free to do it. If theres an audience for Coulter and Maher’s hate speech then theres not much anyone can do to stop it.
Comment by TonyR — 3/5/2007 @ 9:59 am
First let me say I found Ann’s comments juvenile and designed to get Ann more attention. I will however take issue with your comment regarding:
“But accusing gays of being “sinners†and “deviants?†This is beyond the pale and should have no place in our political conversations.”
As a person who actually takes the bible seriously as opposed to people who view it’s teachings as collection of quaint anecdotes to pick and choose among, there is no question that it is called out as sin. Does that make me a saint? No. Does that mean they are going to hell? No. I have my own collection of sins but ultimately I don’t try to pass them off as being OK or less then the sin they are. We are generally called on as believers to love the person and treat them with respect while rejecting the sin. It is not beyond the pale to call gay’s or their practices sin or deviant…unless you consider the Bible and it’s teachings beyond the pale as well.
Is Ann’s vulgar epitaph a worse sin then homosexuality? I leave that for God to sort out but in the end they are both sin and fall short of the Bible teachings.
You could only argue it is not a fair part of the political discussion if you consider Biblical teachings of right and wrong a bunch of superstitious nonsense with no place in political debate.
Comment by Sid — 3/5/2007 @ 11:40 am
Dear Sid,
May I have a list of your sins so I may pick out appropriate derogatory names to call you, based on your deviancy? And since you take ALL of the Bible seriously, which adulterers have you stoned to death recently, or are you really just another picker and chooser?
Love from your fellow sinner,
Ed
Comment by ed — 3/5/2007 @ 3:08 pm
Conservatism used to be about fighting for individual liberties against the creeping power of the state.
I completely agree with you, but where have you been for the last few years??? Is this really the first time you’ve noticed a disconnect between the definition of “conservatism” we believe in and the definition believed by those who outnumber us by a substantial margin (and have correspondingly more influence)?
If everyone started saying “dog” to mean “cat” and visa versa you can either rant about how wrong they are, and continue to speak in away that will now be misunderstood by the world, or you can adapt to the new meaning and speak so that others will understand you.
When you say “conservative” you may mean the kind of beautiful philosophy expressed by the likes of Hayek, Popper, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. but in the minds of the majority (of “conservatives”) it will be understood as “simply a matter of believing in low taxes, small government, a strong defense, and family values” and, I add, reflexive opposition to anything labeled “left/liberal”
You are NOT going to change the current of this river. You can either head toward the bank to get out or be swept downstream by it.
Comment by r4d20 — 3/5/2007 @ 3:27 pm
I was thinking I might take your advice and, “re-examine your own beliefs for deviation from the path of conservative enlightenment.” but I realized you have already unsubscribed to the email list so my possible change of heart will fall on dead ears.
Rick it is fine if you disagree on this matter, however why must you denounce, unsubscribe, and refuse to name those on your side that you disagree with. It’s looking like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh aren’t ready to lynch she who shouldn’t be named (what is this a Harry Potter fan club website)so will you refuse to listen to them anymore and write a letter demanding they be taken of the air?
I agree faggot is not a word that is necessary to use in political speech, but I don’t think it is an impeachable offense either.
Sorry to hear that your friends cannot disagree with you in strong terms without fearing you might not ever speak to us again. I still consider you my friend even if you don’t.
Comment by Wild Bill — 3/5/2007 @ 4:52 pm
[...] There are multiple posts deriding the woman. . .and the links I just described entail in brief why I removed the woman from my blogroll some months ago. As Rod Dreher put it, her material has lived past its sell date. [...]
Pingback by A (very) brief word on Ann Coulter « Nothing — 3/5/2007 @ 5:15 pm
Rick, you need to email me with an address so I can send you a package.
No I did not forget
Comment by Sonnabend — 3/5/2007 @ 5:35 pm
“You are NOT going to change the current of this river. You can either head toward the bank to get out or be swept downstream by it.”
Or stay true to yourself. If enough pebbles follow your example, they settle out on the bottom of the river forming a dam and eventually the current changes.
Comment by h2o273kk9 — 3/5/2007 @ 6:04 pm
guess Ann hasn’t gotten the ‘narrative’ that anything less than total approval and acceptance of homosexuality is verboten. These so-called ‘conserative’ bloggers have bought into the dialectic of the left. I’m sure with their denunciation of Ann, they’ll still be able to hold their jobs, and not be ‘beyond the pale’. but the left will still hate these ‘linguini spined conservatives’ as much as if they said the ‘f’ word themselves. But they hasten the day when any speech that upsets any homosexual, including a bible verse, is outlawed.
Comment by tc — 3/5/2007 @ 7:01 pm
Rick said: “when invited to a knife fight, bring a gun.”
Oh please, Rick, you’re hardly a Gunslinger of the Right. You’re better known for your butter knife.
Let’s see: MOUTH BREATHING, SCROTUM SCRATCHING NINCOMPOOPS…shallow, ignorant, remarkably stupid righties…inbreds……marmoset(thought I don’t see what cute furry little monkeys have to do with anything; perhaps you meant something more “weasel-y”)…brain dead righties…worthy of a quick trip to the asylum in a strait jacket…all these names and much more for a group of people you called “friends”, who just didn’t care as much as you about the whole Coulter comment thing. How atrocious of them! And what a gentleman you are, Rick.
I’m sure you completely miss the irony of all that name-calling in a post about not calling names because of the “deep emotional scarring” it causes. I might add, that you saved your deepest outrage and scorn for people you called “friends” and were constantly begging for votes for your mealy “essays”. Not to mention that you proceeded to do the oh-so-gentlemanly thing and publish their private emails from a private email list. Wow - your manners impress me - what a class act. Should we thank your sainted father for such gentlemanly behavior?
I find it hilarious that you don’t even see your own pomposity (which I have taken the time to kindly point out to you before). Next time, “burnish your bona fides” in private and save yourself the embarrassment of doing it in public. You’ve only come across as a sanctimonious whiner.
Comment by Redhead Infidel — 3/5/2007 @ 7:03 pm
the left will still hate these ‘linguini spined conservatives’ as much as if they said the ‘f’ word themselves.
A shrink was giving a man a Rorschach Test. He held up the first picture and asked what it looked like to the man. “People having sex” he responded. He held up the second card, and got the same response. Card after card and the answer was always the same: “sex”. Finally, the shrink said “I’ve diagnosed your problem. You are obsessed with sex”. “Whatever doc” came the reply, “you’re the one showing me all the dirty pictures”.
One thing I’ve learned by interacting with radicals on both wings is this: The more one attributes “hatred” to his opponents, the more certain it is that he hates them.
Comment by r4d20 — 3/5/2007 @ 10:17 pm
[...] Like when you criticize people who laugh at something for “not being gentlemen” while throwing out heaps of verbal abuse at the un-gentlemanlike ruffians that you’re criticizing that would make a Turkish sailor blush with shame: …MOUTH BREATHING, SCROTUM SCRATCHING NINCOMPOOPS… [...]
Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Did I Mention that I Don’t Like Preeners All that Much? — 3/5/2007 @ 10:52 pm
Dear Ed
If you can think of it, I have either done it or thought of it so feel to say any nasty thing about me you wish and I will try not to suffer under the burdon of your condemnation. I do try not to parade my sins in front of others and demand others validate them as OK though.
BTW, stoning went out with the New Testament.
Comment by Sid — 3/5/2007 @ 11:06 pm
“My beef is with the shallow, ignorant, remarkably stupid righties who not only defend Coulter, but cheer her on. Their explanations vary but center on the idea that she defies “political correctness†and anyone who criticizes her is just an old fuddy-duddy, politically correct priss”
Well you whining no balls bucket of floundering fecal material your pantywaist idea of conservatism would be best served in Howard Dean’s office…
“I feel compelled to point out that I was a “real conservative†before most of these inbreds were in books.“…
Yep and I’m betting you were an Arlen Specter sort of conservative too…
I’ll let you get back to being teabagged by the KOSTARDS…
Comment by juandos — 3/6/2007 @ 7:03 am
Pretty poor imitation of Misha. Can’t you be original or are you simply a chimp with a keyboard?
Misha does it so much better. Best stick with imitating 5 year olds - that seems to be the intellectual level of your comment.
Comment by Rick Moran — 3/6/2007 @ 7:21 am
It’s pretty entertaining watching people try to define what is or is not Conservative.
Are you Lockean or Burkean? Lockeans want low taxes and no government interference in life. Burkeans want limited intrusion, but laws that protect the moral integrity of the country.
Those who throw up their hands and say “oh well, homosexuality is here and has got to be accepted” will tomorrow look at lowering the age of consent so that pedophiles don’t feel “oppressed” (as did the UK).
The question among conservatives is not about financial issues, it is more about where to draw the line on “freedoms”. Even the First Amendment is not unrestrained. As John Milton said “Good men love freedom; all others love not freedom, but license”.
Which of these was truly licentious: Coulter’s remark or the lifestyle it portrayed? Study the damage done to society by the spread of AIDS, which is squarely on the backs of homosexual men (no pun intended). Or, look at the many non-AIDS related ailments that issue from that type of life (Gay anal Syndrome, colostomy bag totes, etc.
Having written the former, I have gay friends. I really don’t care what they do behind closed doors, just don’t present it as analogous to normal human relations or procreation. For the record I don’t consider myself a homophobe (which is literally “fear of man”) but rather a heterosexualist.
Tell me it is okay to damage yourself and others in such grotesque and abnormal ways.
Comment by Roguewarrior100 — 3/6/2007 @ 6:27 pm
Rick,
“Slut”, this word is not offensive? To woman?
Please continue to unsubscribe along with the other
“Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers” who find themselves so outraged.
There is an old Bible story that would fit well here. “Before you take the speck from your bothers eye–remove the plank from your own.”
Comment by Bubbi — 3/10/2007 @ 6:59 am