DebateGate

I believe Ed Morrisey has it wrong.

Ann Coulter made the statement. Ann Counter is the one who needs to get over her issues with homosexuality.

I think there is some merit to the argument, though, BT.  Ann Coulter is known for making outrageous statements but there is some truth to the argument that someone doesn't make such obviously offensive statements absent an environment that tolerates such opinions.  It's no secret that Republicans, at least as a general consensus, disapprove of homosexuality.  But most Republicans don't use the word "faggot" in public discourse - not to mention trying to paint their opponents as "faggots" to score brownie points with an audience.

The fact is, there are a lot of Republicans and/or conservatives (Man, I hope it is a majority - and an overwhelming one at that) who disapprove of homosexuality for moral or religious reasons but do not hate or harrass gays as a matter of daily behavior.  It's bad enough when Pat Robertson claims gays caused 9-11 or words to that effect.   It is MUCH worse when someone like Ann Coulter tries to skewer a Democratic Presidential Candidate by calling him a "faggot."  Aside from the general idiocy of the comment, it shows the kind of debate skills that we would expect from some of the less-intelligent debaters here at the saloon. 

Ann Coulter should be generally lambasted by those of us on the right for this ridiculously childish, offensive comment.  In the same fashion that we ask (and rightly) where the Moslem outrage is at acts of terror and irresponsible rhetoric from Islamists, we need to make it clear that we object to these kinds of idiotic comments.   If we do not do so, the author is completely within reason to blame not just the pundit, but the party.

Hello sirs and all!

Sirs, if I may enter into this tangled web of debate on the tangled web, I think the confusion lies in your (perhaps inadvertantly) using a portion of the quotation pertaining to deception.  Typically, when someone says "Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . ." it is in reference to someone getting caught in a lie.  Obviously, you simply intended to point out what a complicated situation this was. (I also note that you said "is weaved" instead of "we weaved," which adds credence to my interpretation of your words.)  I think this little side debate is based on a simple misunderstanding.  I think JS was just trying to clarify what you meant.  Lanya, was just trying to point out where the misunderstanding might have come from.  I am just trying to clarify where the misunderstanding of the clarification may have been misunderstood. 

I think I just hurt something in my brain.

I note that this story corresponds to one I heard about on the radio a few days ago.  Apparently Mitt Romney has some great grandparents who were polygamists.  There's a shock - a Mormon with polygamist ancestors.   I think one of the concepts we rejected in the revolution (at least implicitly) was that ancestry was relevent to eligibility for leadership positions.   If Obama had slaver ancestors, it is very likely that the same is true of many of that race.  After all, a lot of African-Americans are the descendants of liaisons (a euphemism, in many cases, to say the least) between slaves and slave owners.  But whether a man is descended from slave-owners, polygamists, serial killers or used-car salesmen should not signify.  The works of our ancestors certainly figure in our own destiny, but our thoughts and choices are our own.

That said, there are still many in this country who will judge a man by his lineage, skin color, or religion.  It is the strength of this country that we can carry on the debate without shots being fired.

Hi everyone!  Nice new format.  I can't spend as much time as I used to (by far) but I thought I'd drop in and toss up this tidbit.

OK, so for those who may not know me, I'm a Republican, but I am not a wingnut.  I live here in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia and we are dealing with Senator Allen's "macaca" comment and now the accusations about use of the "N" word back in his younger days.  Now let me make this clear:  I don't buy for a moment that these accusations are anything but an attempt to unseat a Republican in a red state.  I was talking to our local Dem party worker and he told me that negative campaigning was perfectly OK.  It's not his party's job to try to make our candidate look good.  Spoken like a true Clintonite.  Of course, Repubs are just as guilty of negative campagining and some around here may recall that as the reason I voted Dem last governor's race.

But having said all that, and in spite of the motivation behind the accusations, I'd bet my bippie (age alert!) that the Senator said it.  Come on, is it really a surprise that a southern boy used non-PC terms to describe those of African descent in his youth?  The Dems next door (West VA) have a full-fledged KKK boy in their Senate seat. And they get a whole lotta pork out of that particular barrel.  If Allen is using the "N" word now - THAT's news.  I say dump him and be done.  But if he did idiotic things in his youth, who didn't?  Our generation is the one that finally made racism (and not just discrimination) ugly and unacceptable.  Our parents grew up racist and taught it to us.  We are teaching our kids not to believe that nonsense.  At some point, there has to be a transistional generation in any social change.  Ours was that generation.  That means we started out doing things like using the "N" word and making racial jokes when we were kids (Yeah, I did it.).  But we ultimately rejected that idea and started thinking clearly about racial differences.   It's something to be proud of, yet we are ashamed of it.  If we were cancer survivors or had gone throught the great depression like our parents and grandparents we wouldn't be ashamed to talk about our troubles.  But nobody wants to admit learning - and practicing - racism (even the subtle kinds) as a kid. 

I started losing respect for Bill Clinton (as opposed to just disagreeing with him) when he made that idiotic comment about not inhaling.  Of course he inhaled - and who cares.  I personally never did pot, but most of my friends did. (I was just scared of Dad finding out - thanks, Dad!).  He could have said he spent the seventies high and I wouldn't have had a problem with it.  But he tried to fudge it by appealing to the "cool" crowd without losing the "straight" vote.  Screw that!  Tell the truth and be damned.  Allen is doing the same thing here.  I think if he just came out and 'fess up this nonsense would get behind him.  He should say something like, "Look, I said and did some ignorant, terrible things back in my old college days.  I know it was wrong now, and I'm truly sorry.  But back then, it's the way everybody I knew talked and felt.  We had to get over that and we have.  I hope those I offended back then and now can find some peace in my coming, even belatedly, to an understanding of how wrong what I did was.   But I do not intend to leave this race because someone has brought up old mistakes."    The Dems would be disarmed, most people would forgive and move on, and we could get to some OTHER issues (such as who the candidates are sleeping with and whether they wear boxers of briefs). 

Anyway, nice to see you all.  I'll probably get to spend a bit more time here in a few weeks when I go off to a school for a week.  Have a good one, Saloonies!