NJ Democrats try to ban Ann Coulter's book

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
 
When Is A Ban A Boycott

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.
 
FWIW

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.
 
The two New Jersey ( a corrupt state if there ever was one) Democratic legislators who urged book stores to ban Ann C. book are...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Manedwolf said:
Censorship = bad.
Boycott = fine.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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...
 
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Longeyes. She is possibly a "savage" satirist, but nowhere as savage as Carville and company.
 
I'll take Ambrose Bierce, H.L. Mencken, Mark Twain, and P.J. O'Rourke over Ann Coulter any day of the week.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Apparently, only leftist/Democrat/socialists are permitted to talk.

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.
Click to expand...
+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 are
a bitter transsexual man's rantings and Tourette's-like foaming for attention
Click to expand...

Double standard, anyone??:barf: :barf: :barf:
 
Personally, I can't stand shrill, manly women whether they be named Coulter or Hillary.

Biker
 
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......
 
She is the poster child for anger management.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
USA: "Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure"
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
cuchulainn
C
D
  • Locked
Vulgar heckler arrested at Ann Coulter speech
Replies
18
Views
778
pax
P
J
  • Locked
Ann Coulter Attacked
Replies
11
Views
913
Justin
Justin
P
  • Locked
Ann Coulter fires back
Replies
1
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
L
  • Locked
New Ann Coulter book opposes gun control
Replies
24
Views
2K
Darkmind
D
Back
Top