Ann Coulter spoke at the 2011 CPAC.
She decided to stay with the format of all her other speeches by not backing up her claims with any proof.
Ann said at CPAC 2011:
"The left is trying to co-opt gays," she said. "They should be on our side."
Yes. She said this.
Now, no one can say how a group as diverse as gay Americans should vote, but she is implying the Left stole gays from their natural allies, the Conservatives. Because unlike Liberals, Conservatives are against terrorism and for low crime.
In Ann's 2002 tome "Slander", she writes:
"There's a reason the left's rhetoric bears such a striking resemblance to some of the nuttier religions: Abhorring real religions, liberals refuse to condemn what societies have condemned for thousands of years - e.g., promiscuity, divorce, illegitimacy, homosexuality."
Well Ann, which is it?
Are you now against condemning homosexuality? I should think you are based on your speech at CPAC. I doubt a good chunk of conservatives are on board with you on this, though.
She still is opposed to gay marriage and takes credit for GOProud dropping the issue.
She said the gays ask "Why do the conservatives act like our sin is worse than any other sin" in trying to show the audience that if you allow people who have sex outside of marriage to be called Conservative, then gays with their sin should be allowed in as well.
I don't believe I have ever heard a gay person refer to being gay as a sin, but I guess Ann knows better.
Ann is very supportive a chaste gays, though.
There is more DERP to her speech, but this also galled me:
"Liberals want the family destroyed," she continued. "Then you have loyalty directly to the state."
She of course provides no supporting data. 'Cause everyone knows liberals are just evil that way.
I guess she is not aware that divorce rates and teen pregnancy rates are worse in conservative areas of the U.S. than in liberal parts:
http://www.csmonitor.com/...
And this parting shot:
"Liberals could not have been less interested in democracy when it came to taking out Saddam Hussein," Coulter said, mockingly adding that it has been "adorable seeing them get all choked up about democracy now."
Difference, it was the people overthrowing their own dictator. Not a foreign country invading and pushing corporate interests above the interests of the people we are "liberating".
She said it's unclear what the outcome in Egypt will be, and "you don't go around disturbing countries where you have a loyal ally."
So, invading Iraq GOOD because Saddam was no longer an ally
but invading Egypt BAD because Mubarak was an ally.
Makes perfect sense.
Both options are bad, Ann.
But being OK with people living under a dictatorship because it makes life easier for us is just wrong.
Here is the video should you want to see the question answer period where most of the DERP appears.