NJ Democrats try to ban Ann Coulter's book

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
"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.
 
Why don't those hypocrites just have one of these riproarin' book banning parties?
01622.gif

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


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

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.
 
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.
 
Tell it like it is.

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.
 
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 . . . .
 
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... ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top