Ann Coulter?

[Gil Hamilton]

What do you want me to say, Gil? I think I made it clear in my first post that Ann Coulter's popularity among conservatives is not a good thing.

Well, address why she is so popular with conservatives if it isn't a good thing. How is it she can be such a hateful witch and still have so much support?

[Joe]

The short answer is that a lot of American conservatives are morons, or are biased in such a way that they're more prone to support her given her political views.

[Bob McDob]

More like they want charismatic leaders totally sure of themselves and unafraid to "pull punches" (this is a phrase I see repeatedly on these kind of books"). It's appealing to have someone controversial, who shuns the "system" and gives sharp, concise answers.

[Pablo Sanchez]

More like they want charismatic leaders totally sure of themselves and unafraid to "pull punches" (this is a phrase I see repeatedly on these kind of books"). It's appealing to have someone controversial, who shuns the "system" and gives sharp, concise answers.

Especially when the answers are basically a nice looking chick cooing "Oh, you're such good Americans. And the people who disagree with you aren't just wrong, they're pinko anti-American traitors."

[Bob McDob]

On a whim, I did a look on Amazon for the reviews her books got. If you ignore the numerous "YU0 4R3 T3H SUXX0R" posts, there's a couple interesting stuff:

First and foremost the negative, vicious, callous and mindless single-star ratings given to this in-depth factual, quote-filled and referenced book, are clear examples of the utter innate hypocrisies embedded in and indicative of the irrational thought processes and unpatriotic tendencies of many of the liberal persuasion. They surely prove that Treason by Ann Coulter has hit a nerve in the neo-liberals who actually have read it, and simply ignited the intolerance, hatred, bigotry, and partisan idiocy of those who have not, yet rate it badly, just to bring down the averages in the star system.

On a lighter note having completed the book, I find Ann Coulter to be one of the most prolific critical thinkers of our time. Seeing through the many layers of false and misleading journalistic and political lines of rhetoric to find the truth and underlying meanings of the horrendously biased and hypocritical view most liberal icons, media types and so-called progressive representatives hold dear.

Not all Democrat and liberals are such nincompoops and egg-head-like as to buy into the traitorous acts of these false Gods of liberalism. Yet too many simply follow along like sheep and/or robots repeating the great lies propagated by their fearless leaders.

It is actually sad to see them exposed so profoundly by people like Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Mona Charen and Tammy Bruce. But then like Ronald Reagan against the Soviet threat, I may feel for them, but I herald their self-destructive nature and their demise for they (hardcore liberals) are America’s Evil Empire.

In this book, regardless of the spin placed upon any quote or story or event by the biased liberal media and the political pundits of the deviant, degenerate, anti-patriotic, anti-flag waving or singing, socialistic/communist-loving left; Ann Coulter guides us through the Democrat and liberal maze of intrepidity, in spreading falsehoods, even in the face of facts to the contrary.

She un-spins the radical special interest group anti-American barrages and lays the truth bare for all to see and examine and she attempts to correct the falsehoods and rewriting of the constitution, history and best referred to model of the world by the left for their own political and influential gains.

No this is an intense book, a good book, a book filled with facts withheld from the American people for decades and a book that needs to be read by everyone who values the truth and/or dissenting interpretations (something liberals are prejudices against and cannot tolerate).

I'll tell you something else...I will never again look upon those icons of the Democrat Party so higly praised and heralded at public Decmocrat led functions in the future, like Roosevelt, Truman, Kenndey, Byrd, Clinton, most hollywood types and many others in the same way again. It will seem more like a celebration of treason, treachery, corrutpion and deviance than a celebration of great men or women or their deeds, to see liberals slobbering at the mouth, over these traitors of the American character, with praise, like James Carville or Paul Bagala do each and every day.

It is impossible to read this book in one sitting due to that intensity but well written, informative, well planned and pertinent to both past as well as current events. Coulter is willing to tell the truth knowing that she will receive the ire and unsubstantiated ridicule of the left, which again is indicative of their inability to take what they give out. Only hers is more factual than theirs has obviously ever been.

I absolutely love this book! I love the way it was written - how she tells it like it is, no B.S. involved. History classes in high school were pretty much a joke for me. After reading this book, I realize how much I don't know and how I want to learn more. This is definately a book that I am going to read again.

I just read Treason and found it to be very well written. Ann Coulter cuts through all of the spin and lays out a very compelling case of treachery at the highest levels of of the Democratic Party. Agree or disagree, this book is very well written and researched. No wonder the Liberals are having such a fit. I would recommend that all of my liberal friends read this book. I don't think that rank and file Democrats are traitors and from what I gathered neither does Ms. Coulter. She is making a case against the Democratic Party Leadership. She calls its like she sees it.

It's fascinating to read over the negative reviews here, to see the absolute hate and vitriole directed towards her, in the most juvenile of terms. Ann, of course, always stirs up the ire of the non-thinking set, resulting in this sort of kindergarten-level attack. Still, it's actually good to see that sort of review, since it serves to reinforce Ann's point in the first place!

That said... I attended public school, and for most of my life never really knew much about Joe McCarthy, except for what I was taught in school. I always questioned what I was told, since it was never supported by any fact, only by assertations without evidence to back them up. In fact, I was taught that the House Unamerican Activities Committee was McCarthy's... a point which I had never actually connected on 'til now... McCarthy was a SENATOR, he could not and was not involved in anything going on in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in the first place. This was a great place to start the review.

I was also fascinated to read about the Verona Project, something which was never publicized in the popular press, though it's been in the declassified public domain for several years now. For those who haven't read the book yet, let me summarize what Ann points out (and which I have since confirmed) - the Verona Project was a top-secret intelligence operation which proved beyond doubt exactly who in the US Government was in the service of the USSR. The Verona project was declassified a couple of years ago and proves, beyond any doubt, that ALLEGATIONS OF SOVIET INFILTRATION IN THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE US GOVERNMENT WERE CORRECT. Don't just take Ann's, or MY, word for it, though... check it out for yourself!

I have double-checked most of the bits of information Ann references in this book, and have not found anything that isn't correct. It is, in theory, possible that there may be one or two minor wording misquotes, though I certainly haven't found any. The substance of the book, however, is entirely factual and accurate... and it's a crime that these things are not only not not known by most people, but that most people believe things which are PROVABLY FALSE. Thank God Ann is willing to bring these issues into the public arena, since the New York Times is unlikely to ever do so.

Approach this book with an open mind... leave your hatred of those who disagree with liberalism, and your attitude of "conservatives eat babies for breakfast" behind, and try to follow the logic of her argument. You might not LIKE what she has to say, on some emotional level, but the logic of the argument is hard to dispute.

Conservatives don't need to be taught (though most can stand to have more factual ammunition in their argument armory), and the "arch-liberals" know full-well what they are doing (and are, in fact, the topic of this book).

However, most rank-and-file "liberals" believe what they believe based upon what they've been told by "those who know better than we do" (so-claimed). This is why people tend to become more conservative with age... the more you see, the more you know, the more you understand, the more likely you are to be conservative (juvenile name-calling from the left notwithstanding... have you ever wondered how the right can simultaneously be "the party of the rich" and "the party of the trailerpark rubes" simultaneously? Answer - it's not).

Ann's book, by bringing these topics into public discourse, will hopefully help to inform and teach some of the self-named "liberals" who don't understand the true nature of the philosophy they have been fooled into following. More likely, it will provide Conservatives with the verbal ammunition necessary to convince these people of the error of their ways. Logic always wins out in the end... unless the children storm off in a huff and start calling you names (see previous negative reviews on here!). --This text refers to the Audio CD edition.

[Knife]

What do you want me to say, Gil? I think I made it clear in my first post that Ann Coulter's popularity among conservatives is not a good thing.

Well, address why she is so popular with conservatives if it isn't a good thing. How is it she can be such a hateful witch and still have so much support?

The short answer is that a lot of American conservatives are morons, or are biased in such a way that they're more prone to support her given her political views.

There are extremists on both sides of the spectrum, I think would be the correct answer. Ann Coulter is a semi hot chick who wears short skirts and happens to be a Republican attack dogette. Don't quite know what else to say. Each side (no matter how many sides there happens to be) has attack dogs that utilize harsh tactics and BS to advance their agenda. She is popular with extremists for the conservative side because she spews BS that agrees with the party line.

[Perinquus]

The short answer is that a lot of American conservatives are morons, or are biased in such a way that they're more prone to support her given her political views.

The more correct answer is that she does occasionally make a good point. She even hits the nail right on the head once in a while.

Having said that, unfortunately, I have to say she is not someone conservatives should lionize. She has a pronounced tendency to engage in the exact same sort of demonization tactics that she accuses liberals of engaging in. She also adopts extreme positions that are really just way out there. Her defense of Joe McCarthy is a perfect example. Even conceding that there were communist agents in the US government and in Hollywood, and in some of the labor unions (and we know from declassified KGB documents that there were). McCarthy's tactics were unacceptable and reckless. He accused people on the flimsiest evidence; he lied about who was a communist; he grandstanded; he waved a phony list of "card carrying members of the communist party". The fact that he was occasionally right about certain individuals changes none of this - he was the proverbial stopped clock that tells the correct time twice a day. Coulter's defense of him is an indication that she cannot see conservative fuck ups as well as liberal ones.

Davis Horowitz is another conservative who can occasionally take too extreme a line, but he is absolutely spot on in his critique of Coulter's latest book, Treason:

Democrats did allow the Communists to penetrate their party and their administrations in the 1930s and 1940s. The Truman Administration did dismiss Republican charges of Communist influence as partisan politics and was lackadaisical before 1947 in taking the internal Communist threat seriously. But in 1947 all that changed. Truman instituted a comprehensive loyalty program to ferret out Communist influence in government. It was the Truman Administration that prosecuted Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. In fact the decisive battles of this era took place inside liberalism. It was Walter Reuther - a socialist - who purged the Communist from the CIO and it was Truman's anti-Communist policies that provoked the Communists into leaving the Democratic Party and forming the Progressive Party to oppose his re-election in 1948.

By ignoring these complexities - or dismissing them -- Coulter makes her case seem indefensible...

and later in the same article, he cites excerpts from an interview by Chris Matthews:

Chris Matthews: Well, let's talk about the leaders of the Democratic Party over the years. Was Jack Kennedy a traitor? Was he guilty of treason?

Ann Coulter: He was not as strong a president as a Republican would have been. But I'm referring, as I say again, I'm referring to a party that is functionally treasonable….

Chris Matthews: Was Jack Kennedy a traitor?

Ann Coulter: No, he was not a traitor.

Chris Matthews: Was he guilty of treason?

Ann Coulter: His heart was in the right place but he was surrounded by bad policymakers and he harm[ed] the country and its national security.





This exchange made me extremely uncomfortable. When somebody as smart and as gutsy as Ann Coulter equivocates over so direct a question - Was Jack Kennedy a traitor? -- you know (and they know) - that something is very wrong with the position they are defending. Equally disturbing was Coulter's use of the phrase, "functionally treasonable" - as in "[the Democratic Party] has become functionally treasonable." This is a problematic phrase on several counts. In the first place, "treasonable" is not a word but seems to suggest "capable of treason," which is different from being actually treasonous. The distinction is important.

But "functionally treasonable" is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term "objectively fascist." This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as "objectively" treacherous. This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm where Ann Coulter does not really want to be.

Why is she equivocating about Jack Kennedy anway? Kennedy was not only not a traitor, he was not even a weak anti-Communist, as she claims. He was arguably stronger than Eisenhower or Nixon in prosecuting the Cold War. His politics were that of Ronald Reagan. He was a militant anti-Communist and a military hawk, authorizing the largest defense buildup in peacetime history. What can she mean when she says that Kennedy was "surrounded by bad policymakers" - i.e., policymakers who were presumably liberals and therefore harmed the country and its national security? Kennedy was surrounded by Republican policymakers. His secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury - the three key foreign policy posts - were all Republicans.

As I said, she occasionally makes good points, but her extreme views on so many things undermines her own case, and makes her, overall, rather an embarassment to conservatives.

[The Yosemite Bear]

She's probably a demon in the sack as long as you duct tape her mouth shut.

I would bang her, but I would make sure to shoot off into her eyes.

...



Does it get dirtier than that?

Was that to send her back to hell brimstone style...

I KNEW Ava Braun was one of the 113 souls that escaped...

[Illuminatus Primus]

Does anyone know how she got to where she is slinging this pathetic tripe. On the other hand, you HAVE to admit she is pretty hot.

I know. When you're wanting to bang the fascists...

[Iceberg]

Ann Coulter is Limbaugh only with tits and without Limbaugh's charisma.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity.

What a loon.

[MKSheppard]

And yet a significant percentage of conservatives seem to love her. Go figure.

Well, she's a nice change from the trend of overweight men as political
"commentators"....really, all everyone wants to do is bang her

[MKSheppard]

The short answer is that a lot of American conservatives are morons, or are biased in such a way that they're more prone to support her given her political views.

I really don't give a damn because I see a lot of liberals falling over
themselves to suck Michael Moore's cock.

[Andrew J.]

The woman's a psycho. I'd suggest she be institutionalized if she couldn't just fly away on her broomstick.

[Joe]

Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity.

What a loon.

Honestly, I get the feeling that that was a statement that she made in anger (after 9/11), and while she wishes she hadn't said it she's too proud to concede that she's wrong.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

On Fridays, the local newspaper prints one of her articles on the editorial pages. She is pretty far to the right. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh minus 500 pounds.

[Joe]

On Fridays, the local newspaper prints one of her articles on the editorial pages. She is pretty far to the right. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh minus 500 pounds.

Actually, Rush Limbaugh lost most of that weight.

[Iceberg]

Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity.

What a loon.

Honestly, I get the feeling that that was a statement that she made in anger (after 9/11), and while she wishes she hadn't said it she's too proud to concede that she's wrong.

I dunno, we're talking about a woman who advocated randomly beating up liberals to silence them. She's not exactly a stable person.

[MKSheppard]

I dunno, we're talking about a woman who advocated randomly beating up liberals to silence them. She's not exactly a stable person.

Random beatings....nah. How about we just deport them all to
the Alaskan GULags? I mean, if they like communism so much,
lets show it to them firsthand!

[Hamel]

“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

-Ann Coulter at CPAC

That quote from the Conservative Political Action Conferance is what introduced me to Annthrax over a year ago. What an evil whore. She isn't exactly a hotty either. Check out her adam's apple then tell me you want to bang her. That and the fact that she's a chain smoker. Blech >.<

[Iceberg]

More proof that Ann Coulter is evil:

"Every pernicious idea to come down the pike is instantly embraced by liberals to prove how powerful they are. Liberals hate society and want to bring it down to reinforce their sense of invincibility." - Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right

"The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle. If Enron executives had shouted, "Head for the hills!" the employees might have had time to sucker other Americans into buying wildly over-inflated Enron stock. Just because your boss is a criminal doesn't make you a hero." - January 24, 2002

"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy." - July 3, 2002

"The New York Times ran a Tom Tomorrow cartoon sneering about Americans who believe with 'unwavering faith in an invisible omniscient deity who favors those born in the middle of the North American land mass.' This is how liberals conceive of America: an undifferentiated land mass in the middle of North America." - Same day

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." - August 20, 2002

"This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?" - August 28, 2002

Fair enough, buuuut...

"[JFK, Jr.] was totally fair and even-handed. He wanted people to be reading ideas, and it didn't matter that he didn't agree with them." - July 19, 1999

With "good friends" like Ann, who the fuck needs enemies?

Questionable taste:

"Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there's a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it's one of our little methods of social control. We're supposed to fly off the handle." - August 20, 2002 (her "ideal man"!? That scares me!) (also love the homophobic dig there)

We don't need somebody like this in our national discourse. Poisoning the well is her trademark and sole tactic.

[Wicked Pilot]

I'd love to meet. I can tell her about my liberal social ideas, she can call me a traitor, I can pull out my military ID, shove it in her face, and tell her to fuck off.

[Durandal]

She's probably a demon in the sack as long as you duct tape her mouth shut.

I would bang her, but I would make sure to shoot off into her eyes.

...



Does it get dirtier than that?

Sure, rip the tape off and blast it into her mouth. Maybe you'll clean it out a little.

[Gil Hamilton]

She also once defended the book "The Bell Curve" which was a book that tried to prove that intelligence was racially based and that whites were significantly and fundementally smarter than anyone else.

[Gil Hamilton]

Honestly, I get the feeling that that was a statement that she made in anger (after 9/11), and while she wishes she hadn't said it she's too proud to concede that she's wrong.

She wouldn't have said it unless she hadn't already been thinking it, even if she was angry. The only reason she probably wishes she handed said it is not that she thinks she's wrong, but that it backfired against her.