NJ Democrats try to ban Ann Coulter's book


PDA






progunner1957
June 11, 2006, 09:44 PM
Once again, enlightened/tolerant/progressive ones show their true colors: They want to ban Ann Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Apparently, the First Amendment applies only to leftists/Democrats/socialists.

Let's see - who else is known for banning books?
1- The Communist regieme formerly known as the USSR;
2- Communist China;
3- Iran;
4- The Taliban;
5- Aldolph Hitler/Nazi Germany.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:50 p.m. EDT

Ann Coulter Banned in New Jersey?

Two New Jersey Democrats are pushing to have Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," banned from all bookstores in their state because she criticized four 9/11 widows known as "the Jersey Girls."

In a joint press release issued Friday, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender say they want New Jersey retailers to "ban the sale of [Coulter's] book throughout the state."

"Ann Coulter's criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate," the two Democrats complained.

"Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books . . . She is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others."

Quigley and Stender conclude:

"No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter's book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."

Support Freedom of Speech - buy and read Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "NJ Democrats try to ban Ann Coulter's book" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gray Peterson
June 11, 2006, 09:56 PM
This is not banning and censorship. As long as the state of New Jersey does not actually ban it by statute, the retailers may do whatever they want as far as not selling Ann Coulter's book.

Personally I think Ann Coulter is a windbag, but if a state were to flat out ban it by statute or rule, then I would fight any such law, even though I am on the opposite political spectrum. First amendment and all.

longeyes
June 11, 2006, 09:56 PM
R-E-C-A-L-L.

Justin
June 11, 2006, 09:58 PM
Support Freedom of Speech - buy and read Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

Coulter has the right to say whatever she wants, but I've got better things to do than read the half-baked ravings of a Washington, DC nutter.

default
June 11, 2006, 10:03 PM
Do you have a link to original source? The quote was not clear as to whether the Assemblywomen were simply urging retailers not to stock the book, or if they were actually proposing legislation that would legally forbid the sale of the book. If the latter, then that is indeed reprehensible and all believers in the First Amendment should resist it. If the former, who cares, really? People get their knickers in a twist over things they disagree with all the time and urge others to join them in boycotts. Republican ex-Dixie Chicks fans, for example.

rock jock
June 11, 2006, 10:11 PM
but I've got better things to do than read the half-baked ravings of a Washington, DC nutter.
Half the posts on THR meet that definition. Unfortunately, I have to wade through those to get to the good ones.

Justin
June 11, 2006, 10:26 PM
Yeah, but we don't charge you for the privelege! :D

progunner1957
June 11, 2006, 10:48 PM
Do you have a link to original source?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/10/235539.shtml?s=et

cbsbyte
June 11, 2006, 11:05 PM
I have no love for the woman, but banning her books because one does not agree with her is the wrong tact to take. Why not ban her from NJ all together. She won't sell many books there anyway. Who ever came up with this gem, is just as mentaly bankrupt as Ann.

Malone LaVeigh
June 11, 2006, 11:06 PM
Misuse of the word "ban" both by the NJ pols and the writer. Still, it's way more attention than that nitwit deserves for her ranting.

rock jock
June 11, 2006, 11:38 PM
Yeah, but we don't charge you for the privelege!And don't think I don't appreciate it. :)

American By Blood
June 12, 2006, 12:09 AM
I'd be surprised if Ms. Coulter moved all that many units in Jersey to begin with. This hullabaloo will likely cause a net increase in the number of copies sold, whether or not NJ retailers choose to refrain from stocking the book.

That said, I will not be among those purchasing the book. She's a blowhard and a faux-conservative.

Kim
June 12, 2006, 02:30 AM
There is a group at DU (the so called First Amendment stalwarts) who want the Congress to censure her. They are so arrogant and ignorant I have to laugh or I would cry. I alway knew the left was a buch of hippocrits and if you would just give them enough rope they would hang themeselves literally. :eek:

Mr.V.
June 12, 2006, 04:22 AM
Let's see - who else is known for banning books?
1- The Communist regieme formerly known as the USSR;
2- Communist China;
3- Iran;
4- The Taliban;
5- Aldolph Hitler/Nazi Germany.
Wow, you had 4 other references before finally comparing New Jersey democrats to the Nazis...that's argumentative restraint if I've ever seen it.

xd9fan
June 12, 2006, 07:35 AM
COOL now Ann can play the Victim

Doug b
June 12, 2006, 08:03 AM
IMO Coulter's new book is the extreme right preparing America for a new low in political dirt.

Camp David
June 12, 2006, 08:04 AM
Support Freedom of Speech - buy and read Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

Well said! I bought a copy this weekend... good book!

The more I hear of Democrats and their anti-American actions, the more I believe they do not deserve democracy!

dfaugh
June 12, 2006, 08:13 AM
Never read any of her stuff...but it doesn't matter...She could be a raving lunatic, BUT...

Even WITHOUT any kind of legislative "ban", simply the suggestion by any government authorities violates the 1st amendment, IMHO.

Another example that the erosion of our rights continues down a slippery slope.

bromdenlong
June 12, 2006, 08:18 AM
Others said it here first, but apparently it needs to be repeated:

A boycott is not a ban.

A boycott is purely voluntary. A ban has the force of law, and would be censorship. A boycott is not censorship, it is free market capitalism in action. It has no force of law.

Eleven Mike
June 12, 2006, 08:21 AM
IMO Coulter's new book is the extreme right preparing America for a new low in political dirt. What?

Politics has always been laced with harsh denunciation of one's opponents, and this is no different.

Coulter's point was put in the worst possible way, but was basically correct: the left uses sympathetic characters as mouthpeices and then demonizes anyone who disagrees with them. Coulter is getting the same treatment she would have received no matter how gently she had questioned the motives of these widows.

BryanP
June 12, 2006, 08:27 AM
Let's see - who else is known for banning books?
1- The Communist regieme formerly known as the USSR;
2- Communist China;
3- Iran;
4- The Taliban;
5- Aldolph Hitler/Nazi Germany.


You forget the grandaddy of them all - churches / religious organizations. :evil:

My "ban" of Ann Coulter consists of not spending money for her pompous load of BS.

HankB
June 12, 2006, 08:28 AM
Ann Coulter's biggest problem is that she has FAR too much regard for liberals and democrats. :what:

Anyway, I don't waste my $$ buying books filled with people's opinions no matter where they fall in the political spectrum - especially when I'm well acquainted with their point of view from their columns, website, and TV appearances.

And as for these two Jersey politicians wanting to "ban" Coulter's book . . . I wonder how they'd react if there was a move by other politicians to similarly "ban" books filled with the distortions, misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies of Al Franken, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and other nutters on the left.

Eleven Mike
June 12, 2006, 08:35 AM
You forget the grandaddy of them all - churches / religious organizations.The Taliban and Iran are/were religious organizations.

RealGun
June 12, 2006, 08:42 AM
Obviously Ann Coulter and the PC police don't have a warm relationship. The real question is whether or not she has a good point, never mind the red herrings and other obfuscation. She is the shock jock of the political commentators.

Personally I think leftists are addicted to a behavior and to power and react poorly to having that power constrained by a Republican majority and administration. I wouldn't call their stuff a "religion". That is far too loaded a term but does serve Coulter's style of getting attention by being inappropriate to a degree, starting a debate.

buzz_knox
June 12, 2006, 08:46 AM
A boycott is not a ban.

A boycott is purely voluntary. A ban has the force of law, and would be censorship. A boycott is not censorship, it is free market capitalism in action. It has no force of law.

If done voluntarilly, true. If the boycott is initiated because retailers become convinced and/or concerned that the state will take action for or against them based on their response to the call for a boycott, then the situation gets murky.

Not saying that's what is occuring here, but before determining whether something falls within boycott or de facto ban, you need to look at what's behind the overall actions.

The Real Hawkeye
June 12, 2006, 09:23 AM
This is not banning and censorship. As long as the state of New Jersey does not actually ban it by statute, the retailers may do whatever they want as far as not selling Ann Coulter's book.This was my reaction too. Book stores are free to listen to the advice, or not listen, at their choice.

I generally like Coulter, and have read each of her previous books. There are only two issues of hers that I strongly disagree with. One is her support of the undeclared war on Iraq, and the other is her support for the war on some drugs. On just about everything else, I agree with her. Private bookstores, however, are allowed not to carry her books if they feel that's a good business decision. That would not be a ban.

BryanP
June 12, 2006, 09:53 AM
You forget the grandaddy of them all - churches / religious organizations.
The Taliban and Iran are/were religious organizations.

As are the Baptists (and other Christian denominations) who organize(d) book bans and burnings. Oh wait, it's okay to ban Evil Nasty Bad Books. (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm)

Mongo the Mutterer
June 12, 2006, 10:06 AM
I don't care much about Coulter, but ask yourself what these have in common:

The New Jersey "Broads" who lost their husbands on 9-11 Coulter writes about.

Cindy Sheehan

Matthew Berg

Jesse Jackson

...







Answer: they all learned to wave the bloody shirt for their personal gain.

"How Dare You Question OUR Motives.... Don't you see we have a bloody shirt?" :barf:

bluedsteelnwood
June 12, 2006, 10:06 AM
The two New Jersey ( a corrupt state if there ever was one) Democratic legislators who urged book stores to ban Ann C. book are violating their pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. and New Jersey. First admendment issues are as important as any other amendment including the Second. They are using their elected status as public officials for book store owners to do the dirty work for them, in effect enact a ban that the state can not do legally. Suppose the issue was second admendment and these clowns were urging gun shops to ban the sale of certain rifles which the state couldn't do, doubt it would raise a protest from any politician. Ann Coulter as the right to be critical of three New Jersey housewives who choose to use the public spotlight as the family of victims killed on 9/11 to promote their political beliefs. So what!. She did not as the media suggested in a broad stroke criticize every family of the victims of 9/11, even if she did, under the first admendment she has the right, which all ammendments and rights being held equal it is the government's responsibility to uphold just like voting rights are. Can you imagine a federal government that actively promotes the Second Amendment and prosecutes those who impair, make requirements for some higher than others (NYC celibrities I am sure need a pistol afterall they are more valuable) etc. etc. 2008 is going to be one strange election when no politician cares what the people want in terms of a border fence, electronic technology almost makes a literal fence not necessary and the stopping of illegal immigration.

JesseJames
June 12, 2006, 10:15 AM
I agree. Total hypocrisy.
I am no fan of Ann but her book should not be banned.
If you don't like it don't buy it.

DonP
June 12, 2006, 10:29 AM
New Jersey seems to run a lot like our local cesspool, Chicago.

In Chicago if a couple of aldermen stand up and say something like; "Pate de Foie Gras is a cruel and evil food product and we think it should be banned from Chicago restaurants.".

The newspapers pick it up and two weeks later the city council votes to ban goose liver/Foie Gras legally with a $1,000 fine if you sell or use it in a restaurant. TRUE STORY!

It's called saber rattling.

If you're in an elected office you are entitled to decry the content of anything you feel strongly about in public but you can not call for it's removal or put pressure, real or perceived on the businesses selling it.

I have a real problem with people in elected office standing up and calling for the ban or boycott of any published work. Were the situation reversed, and Bush or another "rightie" political type, stood up and on TV called for the ban or boycott of "Farenheit 911" the media would have gone nuts about the 1st amendment being abridged.

GunnySkox
June 12, 2006, 10:34 AM
The two New Jersey ( a corrupt state if there ever was one) Democratic legislators who urged book stores to ban Ann C. book are...

Not violating anything. There's no legislation involved here, they're not threatening to send the Long Arm of the Law down on Borders and Barnes & Noble if they don't boycott the book. Those legislators have as much a right to huff and puff and jump up and down and urge this and urge that as Ann Coulter has that right.

Ann Coulter has the right to write and say whatever she wants about whoever she wants. She doesn't have the right to have that book distributed by anyone who doesn't want to. She has the right to speak, but no the right to make people listen to her. Constitutionality isn't even in play in this court, first amendment rights don't include an "exempt from the results of stirring up stuff" clause.

~GnSx

Not that I don't think their actions are asinine, but they can rattle their sabers all they want; until they actually DO something what is illegal, at which point booksellers and people who give a care about freedom should crawl down their collective book-banning throats with the proverbial microscope.

Manedwolf
June 12, 2006, 10:39 AM
While I personally have no idea why anyone would want to read a bitter transsexual man's rantings and Tourette's-like foaming for attention, I agree with other posters.

Censorship = bad.
Boycott = fine.

S(he) said some nasty things about the widows, some of whom live in the region, so a boycott I can see. But not censorship. I might not like what someone has to say, but unless it's on the level of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, they have a right to rant all they want.

I just also personally wish that political discourse would someday rise back above the level of the gutter in this country. Wouldn't informed, eloquent debate be a nice thing, rather than cynical sniping, bitter, incoherent rants, and pundit shows with badly uninformed idiots shouting over each other like a bunch of schoolyard children?

Camp David
June 12, 2006, 10:54 AM
Censorship = bad.
Boycott = fine.



Just a subtle observation there Manedworf... what if private publishers employed this boycott to firearms magazines in addition to conservative writers? Would you be just as accepting of such a boycott?

I somehow doubt it...

Carl N. Brown
June 12, 2006, 11:10 AM
Ann Coulter is the right wing Al Franken in drag.
When they go over the edge, they are their own
worst enemy. When they are full of it, they
expose themselves.
But in the belief that they might might be correct
about something, we cannot accept silencing them.

Freedom of speech includes the right to criticise
but the power to ban is a threat to the right to
freedom of speech.

Derby FALs
June 12, 2006, 11:17 AM
Just a subtle observation there Manedworf... what if private publishers employed this boycott to firearms magazines in addition to conservative writers? Would you be just as accepting of such a boycott?

I somehow doubt it...

It is well within their rights. This reporter needs to go back to school for such a poor choice of words and his editor for allowing it...

cuchulainn
June 12, 2006, 11:56 AM
Camp David: Just a subtle observation there Manedworf... what if private publishers employed this boycott to firearms magazines in addition to conservative writers? Would you be just as accepting of such a boycott?

I somehow doubt it...Not to speak for MW, but... There's a big difference between being "accepting" of a particular boycott and being "accepting" of the right to boycott.

Ira Aten
June 12, 2006, 12:06 PM
Interesting that only the Politically Correct Crowd can, on a daily basis, label those who disagree with them politically, as "Nazi's, Liars, Murderers, etc." but if someone on the right criticizes someone on the left, that person is immediately charged in the media with making a dreaded, "Hateful Comment."

I recall Ted Kennedy's lunacy inspired claims that George Bush "planned the Iraq war with some businessmen down in Texas for the sole purpose of lining their own pockets". So Kennedy disparages every businessman in Texas, equating them with murder for profit, since he refused to answer who these specific guys were, and not a peep from the media or anyone at all on the left.

I recall when the Political leaders on the left made disparaging racial comments about Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice, (in that order) and getting off completely without being called on any of the racist, comparisons to so called "plantation policies" of the Bush Administration. (Remember The Great Emancipatress Hillary Clinton, and her "plantation" foot in mouth comment?)

I recall when Bill Clinton said "Blacks should get the same rights as REGULAR Americans", and not a single comment was drawn from commentators on that little Freudian slip. (Can you imagine if Trent Lott had made a comment like that? He would probably been sentenced to fifty years in the Federal Pen)

I recall when that celebrated nut case Robert Byrd, former KKK leader from West Virginia, used the "N" word in an interview, got off scott free of comment, and it wasn't a week later that Trent Lott was ran out of Washington for having the racisist-like audacity of telling an old 95 year old man, that he "would have made a good President" when that old man was running for the Democrat nomination of his party for President.

I've seen John Kerry use American troops for political gain, claiming soldiers in Iraq were "terrorizing women and children, when Iraqi troops were SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT" and get away with both inaccuracies, without a political scratch.

But God forbid that Ann Coulter give her opinion about thre or four women she felt were using the 911 trajedy as a political football (unnecessarily, since its' sole purpose was to degrade a President with a current approval rating of approximately five percent) and both the left, and the right, want to string her up.

I recall what James Carville said about an apparant intended rape victim of Bill Clinton's when Clinton was tagged with exposing himself to Paula Jones. Carville said (on Meet the Press) "Paula Jones is what you get when you drag a Hundered Dollar Bill through a Trailer Park".

Those are the type of "compassionate" statments made by Democrat Party leaders who "care" about people, while continuing to bleat like goats how they despise the "Politics of Personal Destruction".

Anyone that thinks Coulter should be banned for her comments, should surely consider the same for Kennedy, Clinton, Carville, and Dean et al. because that crew invented the politics of personal destruction.

xd9fan
June 12, 2006, 12:22 PM
love her or hate her.....shes laughing all the way to the bank.....

Creeping Incrementalism
June 12, 2006, 12:26 PM
Not violating anything. There's no legislation involved here, they're not threatening to send the Long Arm of the Law down on Borders and Barnes & Noble if they don't boycott the book.
There may be no legislation here, but when legislators go around using the word, "ban", it carries a lot of weight, and is completely wrong in his case, as this is a 1st Amendment issue.

Similarly, in California, the DOJ faxes memos saying a type of AR is illegal to all law enforcement agencies, despite the law as written saying it is legal and the DOJ itself having said it was legal before reversing itself, and people may start getting their guns grabbed when they otherwise would not have.

longeyes
June 12, 2006, 12:32 PM
Interesting that only the Politically Correct Crowd can, on a daily basis, label those who disagree with them politically, as "Nazi's, Liars, Murderers, etc." but if someone on the right criticizes someone on the left, that person is immediately charged in the media with making a dreaded, "Hateful Comment."


Yes, there's a double standard. Good point.

It's true that Ann Coulter goes "too far." So do all people who have the guts to pierce the veil of PC and BS. Coulter is reckless and uninhibited and lacks all decorum, and in a writer and social commentator that is a good and brave thing. She's a savage satirist, and of course we all know that the truth hurts.

Justin
June 12, 2006, 12:43 PM
Just a subtle observation there Manedworf... what if private publishers employed this boycott to firearms magazines in addition to conservative writers? Would you be just as accepting of such a boycott?

Nobody's stopping you from firing up a printing press.

Or starting a blog, for that matter.

She's a savage satirist, and of course we all know that the truth hurts.

Evidently satire isn't what it used to be.
I'll take Ambrose Bierce, H.L. Mencken, Mark Twain, and P.J. O'Rourke over Ann Coulter any day of the week.

Ira Aten
June 12, 2006, 12:45 PM
Longeyes. She is possibly a "savage" satirist, but nowhere as savage as Carville and company.

longeyes
June 12, 2006, 01:07 PM
I'll take Ambrose Bierce, H.L. Mencken, Mark Twain, and P.J. O'Rourke over Ann Coulter any day of the week.

Satire aside, what irritates people is that she slaughters sacred cows, usually without mercy. The Left has quite a herd. Whether I agree with everything she says or even the way she says it, I will applaud her courage for puncturing foolish sanctimony and false pride. Coulter uses sarcasm as an art, and we all know, or should, that the root of "sarcasm" is the tearing of flesh.

progunner1957
June 12, 2006, 01:08 PM
Why are only Politically Correct allowed to use vindictive speach

Interesting that only the Politically Correct Crowd can, on a daily basis, label those who disagree with them politically, as "Nazi's, Liars, Murderers, etc." but if someone on the right criticizes someone on the left, that person is immediately charged in the media with making a dreaded, "Hateful Comment."

I recall Ted Kennedy's lunacy inspired claims that George Bush "planned the Iraq war with some businessmen down in Texas for the sole purpose of lining their own pockets". So Kennedy disparages every businessman in Texas, equating them with murder for profit, since he refused to answer who these specific guys were, and not a peep from the media or anyone at all on the left.

I recall when the Political leaders on the left made disparaging racial comments about Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice, (in that order) and getting off completely without being called on any of the racist, comparisons to so called "plantation policies" of the Bush Administration. (Remember The Great Emancipatress Hillary Clinton, and her "plantation" foot in mouth comment?)

I recall when Bill Clinton said "Blacks should get the same rights as REGULAR Americans", and not a single comment was drawn from commentators on that little Freudian slip. (Can you imagine if Trent Lott had made a comment like that? He would probably been sentenced to fifty years in the Federal Pen)

I recall when that celebrated nut case Robert Byrd, former KKK leader from West Virginia, used the "N" word in an interview, got off scott free of comment, and it wasn't a week later that Trent Lott was ran out of Washington for having the racisist-like audacity of telling an old 95 year old man, that he "would have made a good President" when that old man was running for the Democrat nomination of his party for President.

I've seen John Kerry use American troops for political gain, claiming soldiers in Iraq were "terrorizing women and children, when Iraqi troops were SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT" and get away with both inaccuracies, without a political scratch.

But God forbid that Ann Coulter give her opinion about three or four women she felt were using the 911 trajedy as a political football (unnecessarily, since its' sole purpose was to degrade a President with a current approval rating of approximately five percent) and both the left, and the right, want to string her up.

I recall what James Carville said about an apparant intended rape victim of Bill Clinton's when Clinton was tagged with exposing himself to Paula Jones. Carville said (on Meet the Press) "Paula Jones is what you get when you drag a Hundered Dollar Bill through a Trailer Park".

Those are the type of "compassionate" statments made by Democrat Party leaders who "care" about people, while continuing to bleat like goats how they despise the "Politics of Personal Destruction".

Anyone that thinks Coulter should be banned for her comments, should surely consider the same for Kennedy, Clinton, Carville, and Dean et al. because that crew invented the politics of personal destruction.
+100,000! Ding, ding, ding!!:D

Ann Coulter was right when she said, "The thing that outrages Democrats is that Republicans are allowed to talk back."

I was reading Bernard Goldberg's 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America The other day. In it, Goldberg recalls interviewing Al Franken, a "tolerant/enlightened/progressive/rational" Democrat. Goldberg asked him what he thought of conservatives. Franken replied, "They're all a bunch of motherf***ers who should drink poison and die."

I remember after Bush beat Kerry in 2004, another "tolerant/enlightened/progressive/rational" Democrat named Bill Maher proposed this question for his fellow leftist/Democrat/socialists to ponder: "Is it proper to shoot Republicans?"

And yet, Ann Coulter's writings area bitter transsexual man's rantings and Tourette's-like foaming for attention

Double standard, anyone??:barf: :barf: :barf:

Biker
June 12, 2006, 01:14 PM
Personally, I can't stand shrill, manly women whether they be named Coulter or Hillary.

Biker

steelhead
June 12, 2006, 01:28 PM
The only thing that is bad as the people trying to ban her books..... are the ones who like to read/promote her books:evil: . She is the poster child for anger management.

Many fail to see tryanny when it is cloaked in patriotism or religion......

longeyes
June 12, 2006, 01:35 PM
She is the poster child for anger management.

Maybe. But there are a lot of things we need to be angry about these days.

We have W. telling us to be civil and polite and respectful debaters while he and his cohorts concoct plans to give away our country--just one example--and you want me to stow my anger? No way.

longeyes
June 12, 2006, 01:38 PM
Personally, I can't stand shrill, manly women whether they be named Coulter or Hillary.

Hear ya, but a high-maintenance writer is easier to deal with than a high-maintenance President. :D

steelhead
June 12, 2006, 01:48 PM
Maybe. But there are a lot of things we need to be angry about these days.

We have W. telling us to be civil and polite and respectful debaters while he and his cohorts concoct plans to give away our country--just one example--and you want me to stow my anger? No way.


This song is 20 years old but it seems to be timeless... Did Ann C. ever serve in the military?

"As if I really didn't understand
That I was just another part of their plan
I went off looking for the promise
Believing in the Motherland
And from the comfort of a dreamer's bed
And the safety of my own head
I went on speaking of the future
While other people fought and bled
The kid I was when I first left home
Was looking for his freedom and a life of his own
But the freedom that he found wasn't quite as sweet
When the truth was known
I have prayed for America
I was made for America
It's in my blood and in my bones
By the dawn's early light
By all I know is right
We're going to reap what we have sown

As if freedom was a question of might
As if loyalty was black and white
You hear people say it all the time-
"My country wrong or right"
I want to know what that's got to do
With what it takes to find out what's true
With everyone from the President on down
Trying to keep it from you

The thing I wonder about the Dads and Moms
Who send their sons to the Vietnams
Will they really think their way of life
Has been protected as the next war comes?
I have prayed for America
I was made for America
Her shining dream plays in my mind
By the rockets red glare
A generation's blank stare
We better wake her up this time

The kid I was when I first left home
Was looking for his freedom and a life of his own
But the freedom that he found wasn't quite as sweet
When the truth was known
I have prayed for America
I was made for America
I can't let go till she comes around
Until the land of the free
Is awake and can see
And until her conscience has been found"

Mannlicher
June 12, 2006, 01:54 PM
I bought the book. I like it. I like the author. What I am NOT, is a left wing anti American. Rantings indeed! Compared with the insanity and total dislocation from reality that the socialist/commie/democrat pundits seem to spew on a moment by moment basis, I think she is pretty rational. :p

progunner1957
June 12, 2006, 02:21 PM
Did Ann C. ever serve in the military?To my knowledge, no. But why does that matter? It didn't matter that Clinton never served in the military - or is that "different?"

Marshall
June 12, 2006, 02:30 PM
What?

Politics has always been laced with harsh denunciation of one's opponents, and this is no different.

Coulter's point was put in the worst possible way, but was basically correct: the left uses sympathetic characters as mouthpeices and then demonizes anyone who disagrees with them. Coulter is getting the same treatment she would have received no matter how gently she had questioned the motives of these widows.


+1

And actually, she's pretty sharp.

steelhead
June 12, 2006, 03:52 PM
"Quote:
Did Ann C. ever serve in the military?

To my knowledge, no. But why does that matter? It didn't matter that Clinton never served in the military - or is that "different?"



What does Clinton have to do with it? Just so you know, I haven't voted Democrat in any of the last 6 Prez. elections (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, (not Bush or Kerry). Does it really matter? Perhaps not but is always seems those who yell the loudest lack perspective and/or are the ones who end up in scandal for exactly what they denouch in others.

She is a windbag, Al Franken is a windbag. Both can make very good points but so much of the message gets lost in the anger and the righteousness.

boofus
June 12, 2006, 03:58 PM
Why don't those hypocrites just have one of these riproarin' book banning parties?
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/gifs/01622.gif

And those closet (national) socialists have the gall to call Bush a nazi.

gopguy
June 12, 2006, 04:04 PM
Ah yes liberals celebrating diversity and freedom of speech by trying to keep people from readings ideas and opinions by someone they disagree with....... What are they afraid of?:scrutiny:

By the way there was a great picture of Ann on Drudge last week aiming a revolver....I did not get it saved unfortunately.:banghead:

steelhead
June 12, 2006, 04:08 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/a/c/coulter_shooting_gun.jpg

No eye protection?? Ranks right up there with Al Gore's famous photo. Common sense knows no party line.

progunner1957
June 12, 2006, 04:13 PM
What does Clinton have to do with it? Just so you know, I haven't voted Democrat in any of the last 6 Prez. elections (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, (not Bush or Kerry). Does it really matter? Perhaps not but is always seems those who yell the loudest lack perspective and/or are the ones who end up in scandal for exactly what they denouch in others.
All I was saying was that IMO, it doesn't matter if Coulter served in the military or not - like it didn't matter to alot of people that Clinton never served in the military. I wasn't accusing you of voting for Clinton or anyone else.

I was trying to point out that if it doesn't matter for person "A" it shouldn't matter for person "B," that's all.

geekWithA.45
June 12, 2006, 05:13 PM
Ms. Coulter fills the "strident and over the top" ecolological niche in our polity...a two edged sword if there ever was one. Though I appreciate many of her points and her efforts, I found myself cringing and rolling my eyes at many of her antics.

Although I appreciate the important difference between using the force of law and calling for a boycott of a product, that's a hair I'm not interested in splitting, and gets into angel/head of pin census territory.

The essence of the thing is that elected officials, in a position of leadership, have elected to use their power (and not all power is formal!) and influence to deny the masses access to political material that stands against them.

Duly noted, Joan Quigley and Linda Stender, duly noted.

Justin
June 12, 2006, 06:09 PM
No eye protection?? Ranks right up there with Al Gore's famous photo. Common sense knows no party line.

The pic is a fake.
A very well-done one, but a fake nonetheless.

LAR-15
June 12, 2006, 06:20 PM
You know if those NJ Dems could ban her book they WOULD.

They're just pizzed they can't and that's the truth! :mad:

Eleven Mike
June 12, 2006, 07:14 PM
Which Al Gore photo?

There is nothing in common sense that dictates shooting glasses. I wear them and so should you, but it's not something obvious that everyone would understand.

Kentak
June 12, 2006, 07:45 PM
Let's see - who else is known for banning books?
1- The Communist regieme formerly known as the USSR;
2- Communist China;
3- Iran;
4- The Taliban;
5- Aldolph Hitler/Nazi Germany.


Don't forget to add the Catholic Church. Book banning isn't limited to the, gasp "godless."

K

progunner1957
June 12, 2006, 08:23 PM
Which Al Gore photo?
There is nothing in common sense that dictates shooting glasses.The only activity Al Gore needs shooting glasses for is eating.:D

Kim
June 12, 2006, 11:40 PM
I do not like Ann Coulters style. Alot of young people do. But her point was correct. The left wing blogs were all a buzz with the Jersery Girls some talking going on between some of them and DU. They were treated like a Barbara Stiesand. Just think how many times the DEMS and MMM etc. have pulled the poor child that got shot by a gangbanger or a gangbangers firearm. How about that guy whose child got killed at Columbine that is still wearing his sons sneakers and sitting out side in the drive way of the NRA. that the MMM paraded around. You might not like it but she is right and the Left uses the tactic aganist your gun rights. So all your people on the left need to not get so uptight and nasty. Some are as bad as ANN.:eek:

vito
June 13, 2006, 07:30 AM
Two points:
-The remarks were taken out of context as a means of attacking the author. Liberals are notorious for not being willing to argue their case, but instead attack their opponent personally. Don't let the possible misuse of one sentence in her book obscure her major points about the danger the liberals pose to this country.
- While a boycott is certainly not the same as a ban, it is inappropriate for legislators to be using their governmental position to call for this action. As citizens they can urge the boycott of anything they please, but when they attempt to limit free speech as legislators they are coming dangerously close to infringing on the First Amendment.

From many of the posts on this thread it is apparent that many gun supporters are also, inexplicably, liberal supporters as well. I say inexplicably since the liberal left clearly has gun banning high on the agenda. I have no great love for many of the actions of this current Administration, or those of the Republican Party but if you value your Second Amendment rights you have little choice in political ideologies. Do any of you doubt that Queen Hilary or Crazy Al Gore would not seek to take away your right to own, let alone carry a firearm?

Desertdog
June 13, 2006, 08:03 AM
Media Proves Coulter Right
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/12/231923.shtml?s=icp

In their outrage over Ann Coulter’s new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." the media have proved the very point they dispute -– the church of liberalism has a doctrine of infallibility and liberals hide behind a bevy of sacred cows to defend its tenets.


In her book, Coulter writes that ever since Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Channel broke the monopoly on the news and the floodgates opened, the leftist media and the Democrats have been trying "to re-create a world where they can hurl slander and treason without anyone arguing back –- they needed a doctrine of infallibility” that would prevent critics from answering back, leaving their fallacious doctrines unchallenged.


"They would choose only messengers whom we’re not allowed to reply to,” she writes. "That’s why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing hysterical women. You can’t respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering.”



Among them, Coulter writes, are "people with "absolute moral authority” in the words of Maureen Dowd describing Cindy Sheehan -- Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child, a wife who works at the CIA, a war record, a terminal illness or as a last resort being on a first-name basis with Nelson Mandela.”



And so we get the likes of the "Jersey Girls" exploiting the deaths of their husbands on 9/11, Sheehan exploiting the death in Iraq of her son to attack President Bush, Joe Wilson, Rep. John Murtha and other untouchables. To challenge their assertions is blasphemy and "over the line.” And an assault on the "sacred.”



In her book Coulter writes of all of the above unchallengeable messengers, but the liberals in the media have focused on one group -– the Jersey Girls -– four New Jersey 9/11 windows who have blatantly exploited the deaths of their husbands exactly as Sheehan has exploited the heroic death of her son -– to castigate the president and his administration, and become lionized millionaires in the process.



And, just as Coulter has written, she has been lambasted by the media and such liberal Democrats as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for daring to attack their untouchable spokeswomen. Get Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," along with a special offer from NewsMax magazine. Click Here.



The Jersey Girls - Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken and Patty Casazza – "scarcely representative of the hundreds of 9/11 widows” as Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal, are, being widows, allegedly exempt from being criticized, not for their widowhood, but for their exploitation of it for the crassest of political motives.



The four, three of whose husbands worked for the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, first attracted attention when they came together to complain that the average settlement of $1.6 million the government was planning to pay 9/11 victims' families was not enough.



After succeeding in getting their payments increased they began attacking Bush for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks. They demanded the establishment of a commission to explain why the government had not prevented the attack. From the beginning their target was never the hijackers who murdered 3,000 people, including their husbands, but the Bush administration.



They cut commercials for Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, launched vicious attacks on Condoleezza Rice and leapt to the defense of Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton administration Justice Department official who had erected the so-called "wall” that prevented intelligence agents from sharing information with law enforcement agents about suspected terrorists in the U.S.



Two years ago, long before Coulter focused on the Jersey Girls, the Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote about their "venerable status”



"Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York?” she asked. "In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers ... were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."


"The venerable status accorded this group of widows comes as no surprise given our times, an age quick to confer both celebrity and authority on those who have suffered. As the experience of the Jersey Girls shows, that authority isn't necessarily limited to matters moral or spiritual. All that the widows have had to say -- including wisdom mind-numbingly obvious, or obviously false and irrelevant--on the failures of this or that government agency, on derelictions of duty they charged to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, Norad and the rest, has been received by most of the media and members of Congress with utmost wonder and admiration. They had become prosecutors and investigators, unearthing clues and connections related to 9/11, with, we're regularly informed, unrivalled dedication and skill.”


And untouchable, as Coulter has charged.



As Coulter said in a TV interview Saturday night, the media has portrayed her comments about the Jersey Girls as an attack on all 9/11 widows. This, she explained, is "specifically about four women who have turned themselves into political activists against the President, defending Bill Clinton, [and] attacking Condoleeza Rice ...”


Coulter went on to explain that her chapter was about liberal infallibility and how they "keep sending up these human shields to make pure partisan political points. Like Cindy Sheehan, like the Jersey Girls ...”



Coulter explained that in the chapter "I have a whole slew -- plenty of other examples of the use of human shields ... sending out spokesmen we can’t respond to.”



NBC's Brian Williams saw Coulter’s criticism of the Jersey Girls as crossing the line. In introducing the segment on Coulter’s remarks, Williams said, "just when you think that it seems that there are no limits on anything, someone comes along and makes a comment that goes over the line -- the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things are, it turns out, still sacred.”

And there you have it. The politicized Jersey Girls represent something "sacred.” They must not be criticized -- to do so is to challenge the Liberal Doctrine of Infallibility. They are the sacred cows who immunize the indefensible liberal insanities and slanders of the Democratic Left from scrutiny, solely by virtue of their massively exploited widowhood.



Just as Coulter said.

crazed_ss
June 13, 2006, 08:05 AM
Coulter is a joke.

Marshall
June 13, 2006, 08:07 AM
She couldn't be more correct.

Desertdog
June 13, 2006, 08:12 AM
Coulter is a joke.
Laughing all the way to the bank.

Colt
June 13, 2006, 08:26 AM
Coulter is a joke.

Brilliant. Don't refute what's she saying, don't try to prove her assertions wrong, just make an ad hominem attack.

She obviously isn't a joke, as she's topping the NYT best seller list for the 6th time. She says what allot of Americans know but have been PC'd away from saying.

She's great.

Nehemiah Scudder
June 13, 2006, 08:27 AM
Sadly, Coulter's one of the better things going for Democrats right now.

unspellable
June 13, 2006, 08:38 AM
You can tell it like the liberals and p**s off the conservatives.

You can tell it like the consertvatives and p**s off the liberals.

You can tell it like it is and p**s off everybody.

HankB
June 13, 2006, 08:38 AM
One thing I've noticed about the left's response to Coulter's comments . . .

They call her hateful . . .

They call her spiteful . . .

They call her cruel and mean-spirited . . .

Right wing bomb thrower, over the line, unacceptable, a nutter, a joke, etc.

What they're not calling her is factually incorrect.

Hmmm . . . .

gopguy
June 13, 2006, 08:38 AM
No eye protection?? Ranks right up there with Al Gore's famous photo. Common sense knows no party line.
She is wearing shooting contacts. lol:evil:

Actually Al Gore was bending over a M-16 in the field:what: ........hardly compares to a publicity photo set up by a photographer. I have to admit I made a mistake, for some reason I remembered this shot as her holding a revolver. But even I occasionally make a mistake.;)

I can be excused for being mesmerized by the exposed midriff......




In fact next to my friend Rachel Winkler,who used to co host the "We The People" show with me, Ann is the perfect woman. Pro gun, conservative,articulate, charming, beautiful..Rach was also a NRA YES scholarship winner.....what is not to like? In fact I think most people who watched us did so to look at Rachel and those lovely blonde locks, than for anything I had to say. lol Like Ann, Rachel is brilliant too. So I am sure they also tuned in to see what she had to say as well. She just looked better doing it... ;)

Desertdog
June 13, 2006, 08:44 AM
Sadly, Coulter's one of the better things going for Democrats right now.
When they squeal like a pig stuck under a gate with absolutly no positive response and try to ban the sale of her book, does not appear, to me, as one of the better things going for the Dems, unless you are referring to their demise.

First Amendment gives her the right to say whjat she wants without congress critters trying to ban her.

Doug b
June 13, 2006, 08:44 AM
Vito funny I've never heard this out of Senator's Clinton or Gore.Could you please furnish credible proof and maybe plant a mustard seed of doubt in my mind.IMO the rep.has taken more of my gun rights and restricted the use there of than the dems.

Skipper
June 13, 2006, 08:47 AM
I stand firmly with Coulter. She has the brains,guts and forum to say what most INDEPENDENT thinkers believe. Sadly,the sheeple rule!

SKIP

crazed_ss
June 13, 2006, 08:53 AM
Brilliant. Don't refute what's she saying, don't try to prove her assertions wrong, just make an ad hominem attack.

She obviously isn't a joke, as she's topping the NYT best seller list for the 6th time. She says what allot of Americans know but have been PC'd away from saying.

She's great.

So what if her book is #1?

Michael Moore's movie was #1 in America.. That does that automatically make him some credible authority on anything. Likewise for Coulter.

Laughing all the way to the bank.

50 Cent is laughing all the way to the bank by rapping about pimping and selling cocaine. Just cause he's making money doesnt make him right. Likewise for Coulter.

Lou629
June 13, 2006, 08:53 AM
Coulter is as entitled to her opinions as anyone else is, including the democratic luminaries that are now attacking her. And we, collectively and individually, are entitled to say: "Who cares?" if we so choose. I personally don't give a rats' fanny what the media, Coulter or her democratic critics think of themselves or each other.

Now, if they have their way here in Corzineistan, ( formerly the state of new jersey in the united states of america ) they want to try to boycott if not ban her book outright, along with my guns while they're at it no doubt, and THOSE issues i DO care about.

I suppose after the book burnings and gun confiscations, the next step will be to round up all the Coulter fans and gun enthusiasts no? I can imagine a planning session for that over in Trenton right now. Something along the lines of this?
Ve can pudt zem all into a few kamps vehr ve can keep an eye on zem, Ja? Corzineistan uber alles!

So even though i could really care less about Coulter or her critics and wish they'd all go muzzle themselves, i will stand up for Coulters' right to speak.

Manedwolf
June 13, 2006, 08:53 AM
Evidently satire isn't what it used to be.
I'll take Ambrose Bierce, H.L. Mencken, Mark Twain, and P.J. O'Rourke over Ann Coulter any day of the week.

Agreed. There is a vast gulf between actual intelligent, sharp satire...and profane relieving-of-one's-self on the camera lens and page.

buzz_knox
June 13, 2006, 09:01 AM
www.issues2002.org/Domestic/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.issues2002.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Gun_Control.htm

Doug b, if you haven't heard either Clinton or Gore talk about guns, you haven't been listening.

Marshall
June 13, 2006, 09:03 AM
Vito funny I've never heard this out of Senator's Clinton or Gore.Could you please furnish credible proof and maybe plant a mustard seed of doubt in my mind.IMO the rep.has taken more of my gun rights and restricted the use there of than the dems.

I'm not Vito, but you can try this on for size......


http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them
We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000

License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000

Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands
I think it does once again urge us to think hard about what we can do to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced people. I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them.
Source: Press Release Jul 31, 1999

Gun control protects our children
We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.
Source: Forum at South Side Middle School in Nassau County Jul 15, 1999

Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation
We have to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, and we need to stand firm on behalf of the sensible gun control legislation that passed the Senate and then was watered down in the House. It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns-and we have to act to prevent that.
Source: Remarks to NEA in Orlando, Florida Jul 5, 1999

Lock up guns; store ammo separately
If you own a gun... make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999





More headlines: Al Gore on Gun Control

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/More_Al_Gore_Gun_Control.htm


*Less rhetoric on gun control from Gore
Last April, on the first anniversary of the shootings at Columbine High School, Vice President Al Gore castigated Gov. George W. Bush for offering only “half a solution” to the problem of gun violence. He has virtually stopped talking about gun control or the National Rifle Association. Mr. Gore’s aides said he had not backed away from his gun control agenda, which includes licensing new handgun owners and limiting handgun purchases to one a month.
Source: James Dao, NY Times Sep 20, 2000

*Gore says Bush lets NRA make gun policy
In a speech to the Association of Health Care Journalists, Gore said, “Bush has convinced the NRA that he wants to take the gun lobbyists out of the lobby & put them right into the Oval Office.” Gore’s point was that gun violence was straining the health care system, to the tune of $2.3 billion annually, and that Bush was so deeply in the pocket of the gun lobby that he could not recognize this problem.
Bush dismissed those accusations. “I make my positions on what I think is right. I’ll make the decisions as to what goes on in the White House,“ he said. Repeating an accusation he has made before, Bush said: ”I’ve never been a member of the NRA. Gore has been, if I’m not mistaken.“

*This accusation momentarily befuddled both campaigns, neither of which could find evidence that Gore had belonged to the gun lobby. A Bush spokesman said Bush might have been referring to an NRA official saying that Gore had once been so opposed to gun control that he could have been the poster boy for it.

Source: Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times, p. A20 May 5, 2000

*Photo id’s for gun purchase; ban junk guns
Q: What would you do to stop violence in the schools?
A: The one thing that all these incidents have in common is that they involve guns. And that’s why I’ve helped to pass the toughest new gun-control measure in the last generation. I’m now proposing photo-license IDs for the purchase of a new handgun, a ban on assault weapons and Saturday night specials and so-called junk guns, and a policy of zero tolerance in our schools.
Source: Democrat Debate in Johnston Iowa Jan 8, 2000

*Ban certain guns & “super-trace” all guns
I know about fighting for gun control. I cast the tie-breaking vote to take on the NRA and close the gun show loophole. It took a hard fight to pass the Brady bill and make it the Brady law to establish the 3-day waiting period. I want to go farther and completely ban Saturday night specials and junk guns and assault weapons and have what’s called super tracing so that when a gun is used in any kind of crime it can be immediately traced.
Source: Democratic Debate in Durham, NH Jan 5, 2000

*School violence: zero gun tolerance & better parenting
Q: How would you address this problem of hate crimes and violence in schools?
A: I think all of us have done a lot of soul searching about that. There was an appreciation of the fact that there were a lot of things involved. We need to get rid of the guns, get them out of the hands of the people who shouldn’t have them. We should have a policy of zero tolerance in schools. I think we need better parenting.
Source: Town Hall Meeting, Nashua NH Dec 18, 1999

*Zero tolerance for guns in schools, to end school violence
Q: How do you plan to end violence in schools, and how will you assure parents that our children are going to be safe? A: We ought to have zero tolerance for guns in schools. We ought to have more guidance counselors, more psychologists. We ought to ban the assault weapons and the junk guns and the Saturday Night Specials, and gets guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn’t have them, and license all new handgun purchasers.
Source: Democrat Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 28, 1999

*Child-safety locks on guns & more restrictions
The House voted 280-147 against legislation to restrict access to guns and impose safety locks on them. Gore said, “I will personally lead the fight to pass [these laws] as President.”
Five weeks earlier, the Vice President broke a 50-50 tie in the Senate chamber on a crucial gun-control vote.

Source: Time Magazine, p. 38 Jun 28, 1999

*Close gun-show sale loophole
I think that many of the measures to restrict the easy availability of guns to children and to others who should not have them can make a real difference [on teen violence like the Columbine shooting]. I broke the tie in the Senate to close the gun-show loophole [which allows gun sales without an i.d. or background check]. I now call upon the House of Representatives to pass that measure tonight.
Source: CNN.com/AllPolitics ‘On-Line Chat Transcript’ Jun 17, 1999

*Enforce background checks for all gun purchases
Earlier this week, Gore cast the tie-breaking vote on a [Senate] bill that would require background checks for people who purchase weapons at gun shows or who want to retrieve guns they have previously sold at pawn shops. “There is a difference between passing a law and enforcing a law,” Gore said. “We need to make sure we they are toughly enforced.”
Source: Manchester (NH) Union Leader, “Gore Asks Voters” May 23, 1999

*Focus on gun safety, not hunters & sportsmen
Q: Do you support the Brady Bill?
BUSH: Law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect their families. We ought to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. I also believe that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. The federal government can help.

*GORE: All my proposals are focused on that problem: gun safety. None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles. They’re aimed at the real problem. Let’s have a three-day waiting period, A cooling off, so we can have a background check to make sure that criminals and people who really shouldn’t have guns don’t get them.

Source: (X-ref Bush) St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

*Restrict guns from wrong hands, not sportsmen & homeowners
I will not do anything to affect the rights of hunters or sportsmen. I think that homeowners have to be respected in their right to have a gun if they wish to. The problem I see is that there are too many guns getting into the hands of children and criminals and people who for whatever reason, really should not be able to get guns.
I think these assault weapons are a problem.
So I favor closing the gun-show loophole. In fact, I cast the tie-breaking vote to close it.
I think we ought to restore the three-day waiting period under the Brady Law.
We should toughen the enforcement of gun laws so that the ones that are already on the books can be enforced much more effectively. Some of the restrictions that have been placed by the Congress in the last few years, I think have been unfortunate.
I think that we ought to make all schools gun free. Have a gun-free zone around every school in this country.
And child safety trigger locks on a mandatory basis and others.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

*Gun licensing by states, but no registration
BUSH [to Gore]: I disagree on this issue. He’s for registration of guns. I think the only people who are going to show up to register or get a license, are law-abiding citizens. The criminal’s not going to show up and say, hey, give me my I.D. card, and I don’t think that’s going to be an effective tool to make the, keep our society safe.
GORE: I’m not for registration. I am for licensing by states of new handgun purchases: A photo license I.D. like a driver’s license for new handguns.

Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

*No special lawsuit protection for gun makers
Gore has a checkered history when it comes to guns. As a Congressman in rural Tennessee, he was not against them As a senator and Vice president, he changed tack completely, working hard for the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons. It is perhaps his proudest association with the president, after the economy. Gore would:
introduce mandatory photo licenses for handgun purchases
limit gun sales to one per person per month
crack down on gun shows
ban “junk guns” (cheap handguns often used in violent crimes)
increase penalties for knowingly selling a gun to someone ineligible to purchase one
require gun manufacturers and federally-licensed sellers to report gun sales to a state authority
oppose efforts to provide special legal protection for gun manufacturers, or to loosen existing limits on concealed weapons
increase penalties for gun-trafficking and gun-related crimes
Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” special Sep 30, 2000

*Mandatory background checks & child safety locks
I’ll fight to make every school in this nation drug-free and gun-free. I believe in the right of sportsmen and hunters and law-abiding citizens to own firearms. But I want mandatory background checks to keep guns away from criminals, and mandatory child safety locks to protect our children.
Source: Speech to the 2000 Democratic National Convention Aug 18, 2000

*Agrees with Bush on banning weapons; but wants registration
Where They Agree: Regarding guns, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore would, if elected president:
Support the current ban on assault weapons.
Prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons.
Ban imports of high-capacity ammunition clips.
Raise the minimum age for possessing a handgun from 18 to 21.
Require that trigger locks be sold with handguns.
Where They Differ
Bush also would:
Provide more money for enforcement of gun laws.
Support automatic detention for young people who commit crimes with guns.
Oppose government-mandated registration of guns owned by people who don’t break laws.
Gore also would:
Require photo licensing for handgun purchases.
Limit gun purchases to one per month and require a three-day waiting period.
Require manufacturers and federally licensed sellers to report sales to a state authority.
Source: Associated Press in Los Angeles Times Apr 21, 2000

*Nationally mandated, state-run system of photo licensing
Noting that more than one of the guns used at Columbine was purchased at a gun show, Gore stressed the need to close the gun show loophole that allows purchasers to avoid background checks when buying guns at gun shows. Gore also called for requiring child-safety locks on handguns; banning junk guns and assault weapons; and requiring a nationally mandated, state-run system of photo licensing and a full background check for all new handgun purchases.
Source: Press Release, Fort Lee, NJ Apr 20, 2000

*Ban guns in churches; “lock box” for crime funding
Gore announced today that he would ban firearms from places of worship and where school events are held, and highlighted his comprehensive anti-crime agenda. Gore also announced the administration’s support of a Senate proposal that would create a budgetary “lock-box” for law enforcement. “We need to seize upon the growing consensus that it is time to get guns away from those who should not have them,” Gore said. “I believe in the rights of hunters, sportsmen and legitimate gun owners. But America cannot afford another Columbine, or Paducah, or Jonesboro.“
Gore would fight to enact legislation to prohibit the carrying of a firearm in churches, synagogues, mosques, and all places of worship, as well as places where school events are held. And Gore supports ”lock box“ legislation that would protect criminal justice funding for the next five years, and would allow local communities to plan for the future without having to worry every year that their funds would be used for other purposes.

Source: Press Release Apr 14, 2000

*Take on the NRA with presidential leadership
BRADLEY. We make a mistake when we take a tragic incident and we look at that one individual case [instead of] a much broader case. Everybody was struck by Columbine. Why? Because we saw our own kids, they looked like our kids, we thought. But 13 kids are killed every day in America with a gun and 800,000 kids took a gun to school last year. Now that is not going to change unless there’s concerted leadership from the national government that’s willing to marshal public opinion to overcome the vested interest, the special interest that’s embodied in the NRA.
GORE: I agree with that. I was a co-sponsor of the Brady Law. I cast the tie-breaking vote to close the so-called gun show loophole. The NRA has targeted me as a result. We have got to take them on strongly and pass new gun control legislation-not aimed at hunters and sportsmen, but at these handguns that are causing so much distress in our country.

Source: Democrat debate in Los Angeles Mar 1, 2000

*Tough gun laws & so much more, to stop child tragedies
Q: Your comments on the shocking incident of the 6-year-old boy shooting a girl in a 1st-grade classroom?
BRADLEY: How many lives will have to be taken by gunfire, how many families will have to be marred for life? We need very tough gun legislation, registration and licensing of all handguns, gun dealers out of residential neighborhoods, trigger locks, background checks, but above all, what we need is a leader who’s committed to this every day he’s in office. Otherwise, you’ll never beat the NRA.

GORE: I feel so deeply for the family of this little girl who was killed. The boy [lived in] a flophouse, [with] guns laying around. We need child-safety trigger locks. We need to ban junk guns. We need to reinstate the 3-day waiting period. We need to also deal with drugs. That was part of this problem. We need more psychologists and guidance counselors in our schools and more teachers with smaller classes so they can keep track of these students and their family situation. And so much more.

Source: Democrat debate in Los Angeles Mar 1, 2000

*Passed toughest gun control in 30 years; same for next 30
BRADLEY [to Gore]: I’ve offered the strongest gun control proposal of any presidential candidate in history. Gore was a conservative Congressman-he voted with the NRA.
GORE: The Clinton-Gore administration has passed the toughest gun control measures in the last 30 years. I cast the tie-breaking vote to close the gun show loophole.

BRADLEY: What you’ve seen is an elaborate “Gore Dance.” It is a dance to avoid facing up to your conservative record on guns. It is a dance that denies the fact that you do not support registration and licensing of all handguns, but you want to give the impression of that, so you say, “I’m for licensing of all mmmm-handguns.” What does that mean? It means, “I’m for licensing of all new handguns,” only new. Not the 65 million that are out there.

GORE: I support a complete ban on junk guns, assault weapons, and yes, I support photo license I.D.’s for the purchase of all new handguns when somebody goes down to the gun store.

Source: (X-ref from Bradley) Democrat debate in Harlem, NYC Feb 21, 2000

*Zero tolerance for guns at school; raise age to 21
Q: How would you protect children from firearms?
A: I will support legislation requiring gun manufacturers to put child-safety trigger locks on all guns. In our schools, I will have zero tolerance for guns. And I will work to raise the age for handgun possession from 18 to 21 and to enact stiff new penalties for adults who sell guns to minors. We should enact a 3-day waiting period for all handgun purchases, and require buyers to obtain a license after passing a background check & safety test.
Source: National Association of Children’s Hospitals survey Jan 8, 2000

Marshall
June 13, 2006, 09:04 AM
Continued.............


*Maximize gun control within what’s politically possible
BRADLEY [to Gore]: I have proposed registration & licensing of all 65 million handguns in America. President Clinton has said he is for that. We’re in the midst of this tremendous rash of gun violence in America.. Registration and licensing is what we do for automobiles. Why can’t we do it for handguns in America and why don’t you support it?
GORE: I do support licensing of the purchase of all new handguns. The president said, yeah, he supports that idea. But it doesn’t have a prayer of ever becoming law. It’s much more sensible to try to get the maximum gun control that we possibly can. We have to find a way to make our political system work, taking into account the fact that there are so many people who are going to fight tooth and nail against measures [like those Bradley proposes].

BRADLEY: [You’re saying], essentially, that it’s too difficult to do. The essence of leadership is taking something that is difficult and making it possible [by] engaging the American people.

Source: (Cross-ref. from Bradley) Democratic Debate in Durham, NH Jan 5, 2000

*Counter gun lobby with ‘family lobby’ to shield kids
Gore stressed the need for stricter gun control laws. “Families need help getting guns off our streets, out of our schools and away from children and criminals,” he said. “And I say to every family in America: Let us create a family lobby as powerful as the gun lobby. If we did that, then instead of fighting off new protections for gun manufacturers that would shield them from lawsuits, we can start passing legislation to actually shield our children from gun violence,” Gore said.
Source: CNN.com/AllPolitics “Family agenda” Jun 18, 1999

*Voted against some gun limitations while in Congress
Gore, as a member of Congress, voted:
Against a 14-day waiting period for handgun purchases in 1985, but then in favor of a seven-day waiting period in 1991.
Against gun dealer licensing and inspection requirements in 1985.
Against requiring serial numbers on all handguns manufactured in the United States.
Against retaining the ban on the interstate sale of handguns in 1985.
Source: CNN.com/AllPolitics “Republicans use Gore’s words” Jun 17, 1999

*Supports background checks at gun shows, in tie-breaker
Al Gore made a rare Senate appearance and cast a tie-breaking vote that enabled a gun control amendment to prevail, with a vote of 51-to-50, over a less stringent version. The amendment would require background checks with the sale of firearms at gun shows. “I personally would like to dedicate my tie-breaking vote to all of the families that have suffered from gun violence,” Mr. Gore added. Today’s vote was only the 4th in Mr. Gore’s Vice Presidency in which he broke a tie in the Senate.
Source: New York Times, p. A-1 May 21, 1999

*Supports Brady Law and ban on assault weapons
Al Gore believes we must do more to get guns off the streets and out of the hands of violent criminals, without affecting the rights of sportsmen and hunters. He worked to enact a ban on deadly assault weapons, and the Brady Law, which has stopped thousands of felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns.
Source: www.AlGore2000.com/issues/crime.html 5/16/99 May 16, 1999

*Voted YES on background checks at gun shows.
Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

RealGun
June 13, 2006, 09:12 AM
When everyone calms down about this politically incorrect assertion, they will realize that Coulter is dead right. For things to change, someone has to be the jerk, Coulter is good at it, and will prove quite effective.

Others will shoot the messenger.

XLMiguel
June 13, 2006, 09:15 AM
What they're not calling her is factually incorrect.

I remember seeing a bunch of harpies on TV a coiuple years ago (don't know if it was the same bunch as 'the Jersey girls') who were bitterly complaining about how the gov't compensation (which, IIRC, was well over $2 million each) wasn't enough and were absolutely vitrolic towards Bush et al.

I was impressed with their overall crassness and greed, and couldn't help but wonder about a couple of things -
- Had their husbands lived and continued to work, would they have ever accumulated that much money?
- Had they died in the 'normal' line of duty, would their insurance, pensions, etc, ever have amounted to that much money
- Why should the .gov be compensting them at all? Why should the .gov indemnify against bad luck?
- And lastly, why was their outrage aimed at the .gov instead of the people who actually caused their husbands' death? It was just gross.

While I have great sympathy for all who lost friends and loved oneson 9/11, there are a small number of opportunists who clearly are profiting from the tragedy, and I would put the politicos who prop them up as 'moral authorities' in the same league as the scammers who emerged from under their slimey rocks after 9/11.:barf:

Bartholomew Roberts
June 13, 2006, 09:17 AM
Multiple Coulter threads merged.

TrekkieFromHell
June 13, 2006, 09:29 AM
And lastly, why was their outrage aimed at the .gov instead of the people who actually caused their husbands' death? It was just gross.

Because the government is supposed to be there all the time for us, making sure we are protected from everyone, including ourselves. :barf:

'Card
June 13, 2006, 10:15 AM
Holy crap. Coulter must be tickled to death. What better publicity could a right-wing author possibly get than to have a pair of shrieking hysterical New Jersey liberals start calling for a ban of her book? I hope those two harpies own stock in Coulter's publisher or something, because this is going to increase sales on the book by at least 20% by the time it's all said and done.

boofus
June 13, 2006, 10:59 AM
I'm putting in an order for this book now. Anyone that can get socialist liberals riled up enough to show their nazi roots must be hitting their soft weak underbelly with the sharp edge of truth. :p

crazed_ss
June 13, 2006, 11:00 AM
I saw her on Hannity and Colmes last night and she didnt seem like her normal self. She wasnt nearly as vicious as normal. She seemed really subdued and vunerable. Michelle Malkin was on Oreilly and she even said Ann went to far this time.

Camp David
June 13, 2006, 11:07 AM
Michelle Malkin was on Oreilly and she even said Ann went to far this time.

Too far? Michelle knows full well that Coulter is right on the money! Malkin's even said so herself... the full weight of Coulter's book is being neutralized by this departure to a small part of it; i.e., the New Jersey girls and their culture of victimhood, which liberals embrace... They take victims of 09/11/01 and make them a shield against the president and his policies. They do this because to argue against such victims makes conservatives unable to address the message. Not only is this fact it is what liberals do all the time...a la Sheehan et al.

The larger message Coulter brings across, the religion of liberalism, is more important as it affects Second Amendment supporters... the liberalism being advanced by the secular sees a world without private gun ownership and you better be aware of it.

The liberals are dogging Ann Coulter on this departure against the New Jersey girls simply because they wish to neutralize Ann's larger warning against secular liberalism: WHICH IS A REAL DANGER....

Carl N. Brown
June 13, 2006, 11:56 AM
Ann Coulter may be right on the issue, but wrong on the personal attack.
I lump her style with Michael Moore and Al Franken.

That said, a boycott proposed by an individual is free speech too; but
a boycott proposed by a legislature is WRONG WRONG DANGEROUS.

In a free market of ideas, truth will win out in the long run.
Ban censorship.

mp510
June 13, 2006, 12:08 PM
Granted, they are not giving Ms. Coulter (who I have personally met, spoken with, and generally respect) the respect that any author is due, however the state is not actually violating her free speech. Some state reps are being ignorant, but that is all. I don't forsee any bookstores, particularly major chains, dropping the book since it will probably be a big seller to people who do and don't support her given the publicity that the media has given the event.

Desertdog
June 13, 2006, 12:24 PM
FLASH: COULTER, CARLIN ON LENO
Mon Jun 12 2006 19:53:54 ET
http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

Controversialist Ann Coulter and controversialist George Carlin NBC's will appear on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno this Wednesday.

Carlin will discuss his role in "Cars," from Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios. The movie is currently the #1 at the box office. Coulter will talk about her latest controversial book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," currently the #1 book at AMAZON.

Marshall
June 13, 2006, 12:27 PM
One big difference between Moore/Franken and Colter, Colter is factually correct.

gopguy
June 13, 2006, 12:33 PM
One big difference between Moore/Franken and Colter, Colter is factually correct.
_____________ +1

Ann nails it every time. For years we had to endure liberals using inflamatory language on us...now here is this charming blonde nailing them and not worrying about stepping on their toes with blunt terminology. I adore her.;)

Mongo the Mutterer
June 13, 2006, 12:56 PM
Yep, Conservatives have to be correct. Liberals can say anything since they have cover with their allies in the Socialist Mainstream Media.

Look at Robert Byrd using the "N" word, and being a past Klansman. Gets a pass.

There are thousands of other occurances, and idiots like Al Franken, Micheal Moore, and Bill Maher put up on pedestals by the SMSM.

Desertdog
June 13, 2006, 01:11 PM
Look at Robert Byrd using the "N" word, and being a past Klansman.
Wasn't not just a Klansman but the Grand Dragon.

gopguy
June 13, 2006, 01:45 PM
Wasn't not just a Klansman but the Grand Dragon.

"Sheets" Byrd :barf: is an excellent example of the double standard. That old Klansman has been soiling the halls of congress since 1952. West Virginia should be ashamed....There is a murderer in the Senate too....But we should not mention Chappaquidick Teddy, that is insensitive. Mass should be ashamed to have inflicted him up on us....But Tom DeLay is a threat to the Republic who had to be drummed out of Congress.:rolleyes:

Carl N. Brown
June 14, 2006, 11:09 AM
When you get past the inflammatory rhetoric,
Coulter does a better job of nailing her facts
than Al Franken who still has to invoke the
"Satire is protected free speech" defence.

And Coulter did not attack all 9/11 widows.

Camp David
June 14, 2006, 11:32 AM
Ann Coulter may be right on the issue, but wrong on the personal attack.

I am extremely sad that many conservatives have lost the cajones to speak out on needed issues; indeed Ms. Coulter, Mrs. Malkin, and Ms. Ingraham are some of the few conservatives speaking out today! We need more.

Personal attack? Have you even listened to some of the rhetoric the left uses on a routine basis? They all de rigeur refer to our president as a terrorist! Coulter did not refer to all the victims of the 09/11/01 terrorist attack, nor did she refer to all the survivors; instead she refered to four (4) NJ politicos (The Jersey Girls) who have become a mouthpiece for the liberal left, a la Cindy Sheehan routine...

And to Coulter's larger issue, re: The Church of Liberalism, she is spot on with her comments on the secular! Bravo Ann!

Carl N. Brown
June 14, 2006, 11:56 AM
Malkin is magnificent: makes her points without getting personal.

I bet Coulter fans order their steaks rare and Malkin fans order
their steaks well-done.

boofus
June 14, 2006, 12:13 PM
Rare? I eat the meat right off the cow. :neener:

I like Ann because she tells it exactly the way she sees it. She doesn't waste time mincing words or trying to not offend those who would be offended by everything. Political correctness is about the closest thing to 'thought crime' there is, and she tosses it right out the window.

Eleven Mike
June 14, 2006, 12:44 PM
I bet Coulter fans order their steaks rare and Malkin fans order
their steaks well-done.In my case, yes, I like my steaks and my columns well-done. Malkin is smarter, more interesting and looks better. The press can't give Malkin much bad publicity; they don't want their minority followers to know they can leave the leftist reservation.

Biker
June 14, 2006, 12:47 PM
I too enjoy Malkin's work, and yup, she's prettier.:)

Biker

Phetro
June 14, 2006, 01:03 PM
So what if her book is #1?

Michael Moore's movie was #1 in America.. That does that automatically make him some credible authority on anything. Likewise for Coulter.

50 Cent is laughing all the way to the bank by rapping about pimping and selling cocaine. Just cause he's making money doesnt make him right. Likewise for Coulter.

But you still haven't said that she is[/i] wrong. You've merely said circumstances don't [b]make her right automatically, which is true, and a strawman, as most arguments from the left are.

No distraction, however, will work to veil from smart people the fact that you are avoiding the main question, out of a lack of knowledge to refute it.

Ann Coulter is saying what needs to be said, how it needs to be said. She is a blessing to America, and she's no Bushbot, either.

Leftists need to wake up and realize that they will never trick us into voting for their candidates, or losing sight of the fact that the RIGHT wing is right in every sense of the word. No amount of "see, there's plenty of leftist gun owners--we're just like you!" portrayals will succeed in blinding us to the fact that leftists in office confiscate gun rights, period. It's what they do.

zeke1312
June 14, 2006, 09:35 PM
I love Ann Coulter as she wacks her way through the "touchy Feely" liberals! Bring it on Ann!:)

GoRon
June 14, 2006, 11:34 PM
Coulter can say whatever the hell she wants to. But I for one have far better things to do than read the nazi rants and ravings of another religious nutbag Conservative.

Your first post is decidedly not High Road.

Welcome to to THR, hope you have more in your tool bag than using "Nazi" references and insulting Christians.

Ann is pro gun from what I can tell.

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/gun.jpg

Krauser
June 14, 2006, 11:38 PM
Your first post is decidedly not High Road.

Welcome to to THR, hope you have more in your tool bag than using "Nazi" references and insulting Christians.

Ann is pro gun from what I can tell.

Judge my posts all you want to. Did I insult Christians in that post? No, I didn't, especailly seeing as how I am one.

Yeah, Ann is pro gun. There are such things as pro-gun people who are nuts.

Desertdog
June 15, 2006, 12:15 AM
Coulter can say whatever the hell she wants to. But I for one have far better things to do than read the nazi rants and ravings of another religious nutbag Conservative.
Very Good. Goodbye.

ReadyontheRight
June 15, 2006, 12:46 AM
While I personally have no idea why anyone would want to read a bitter transsexual man's rantings and Tourette's-like foaming for attention, I agree with other posters.

Censorship = bad.
Boycott = fine.


Wow...Bravo...Truly High Road.

So if Ann were to be actually a transexual man or suffer from a disease, would her/his observations then matter or NOT matter? I'm confusedly bouncing around in an ad-himonem conundrum.:rolleyes:

Why is it that any mention of boycott (not anything even remotely CLOSE to censorship) of...say,,, a George Clooney movie is immediately denounced as "knee-jerk" and "extreme"?

Seems to me that Thomas Paine had the same problems as Ann. I appreciate that she is willing to BBQ the new sacred cows.

More power to her.

And if you agree with EVERYTHING some other person says...you are merely wasting O2.

ReadyontheRight
June 15, 2006, 12:54 AM
I am also rather curious if everyone posting has ever even read Ms. Coulter.

Don't cost ya nothin' (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20060615/cm_ucac/partyofrapistproudtobegodless)

"Sadly for the MSM, the Silent Majority is silent no more."

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 12:55 AM
Exposing and deriding fools should be the preoccupation of any gentle man or woman. That is how society advances and elevates its standards. If Ann is God's hammer, albeit swathed in velvet, so be it. With the amount of shamelessness and sheer lunacy on the Left today the only wonder is that Coulter lacks for more spiritual brothers and sisters. We need a phalanx of verbal warriors to deal with the arrant nonsense of our times.

Krauser
June 15, 2006, 02:38 AM
Censorship of the book isn't necessary, nor is censorship for anything. A boycott of it is an acceptable thing. I think it is funny almost every Conservative thinks she's got brains and smarts after such quotes as "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building", (To a disabled Vietnam vet): "People like you caused us to lose that war", and "If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman." - Wait a minute... of course they think she's got brains, because that's Conservative thinking.

It's a sad world we live in.

Desertdog
June 15, 2006, 04:05 AM
Krauser,
I thought that you said Coulter can say whatever the hell she wants to. But I for one have far better things to do than read the nazi rants and ravings of another religious nutbag Conservative.

So why are you back on THR??

Krauser
June 15, 2006, 04:09 AM
There's a difference in legal terms between "She can say whatever the hell she wants to" and "I think it is funny almost every Conservative thinks she's got brains and smarts after such quotes as-", if that's for some reason what you're saying.

In terms of hearing/seeing her rants, I guess I should have put that as "I wish to hear no more of her nutbag Conservative rants. I've seen what this person is like, and refuse her the opportunity to have me bought into any of her views". There. That better?

The_Antibubba
June 15, 2006, 04:59 AM
I doesn't matter how accurate the message is if you can't stand the messenger. I have tuned her and her acid-dripping invective out.

Krauser
June 15, 2006, 05:13 AM
Haha. Antibubba. Just out of curiosity, does that have anything to do with Bubba The Love Sponge? :D

Carl N. Brown
June 15, 2006, 11:35 AM
"I will defend to my death your right to speak,
but I will criticise to my death the way you say it.":D

Hayward Juhbuzzoff
June 15, 2006, 11:53 AM
Franken isn't really a good comparison to Coulter, because he doesn't really take the partisanship to the same level of sheer hate.

Ward Churchill, the professor who called the 9/11 victims nazis, is a better comparison to Coulter, as far as over-the-top spewing of divisive inflammatory nonsense. Coulter's errors, unfounded allegations, mistakes, an so on, have been well-documented. Google "ann coulter lies" and you'll have no shortage of reading material.

That said, she and others of her ilk like Churchill, should always have the right to spew... and anyone who wishes to organize a boycott of her books is likewise free to do so.

Desertdog
June 15, 2006, 12:29 PM
Ward Churchill, the professor who called the 9/11 victims nazis, is a better comparison to Coulter, as far as over-the-top spewing of divisive inflammatory nonsense.
You overlook the fact that Churchill is a Government (Schoo/College) employee, thus being paid with tax money.

Ann Coulter is a Free Enterprise Employee, thus being paid what she earns from the sales of her book. No tax money involved except what she has to pay to the Taxman who turns around and gives a certain amount of it to Ward Churchill.

Leanwolf
June 15, 2006, 12:57 PM
CRAZED SS - "Michael Moore's movie was #1 in America.."


No it wasn't. Not even close.

Did it make millions for Moore?? Sure. But # 1 box office?? Huh uh.

L.W.

Art Eatman
June 15, 2006, 01:25 PM
Well, this went Low Road, for sure. Reinforces my notion that any thread over two or three pages generally goes to garbage.

:barf:

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "NJ Democrats try to ban Ann Coulter's book" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!