Ann Coulter's new book “Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America.”

[Erika1487]

The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Democrats activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs -- they are the mob. Indeed, the very idea of a "community organizer" is to stir up a mob for some political purpose. "As so frequently happens when a crowd goes wild," historian Eric Durschmied says, "there is always one who shouts louder and thereby appoints himself as their leader."1 Those are the people we call "elected Democrats."

The Democrats' playbook doesn't involve heads on pikes -- as yet -- but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents, and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas -- these are the earmarks of a mob leader. Over and over again, one finds the Democrats manipulating the mob to gain power. It is official Democratic policy to appeal to the least informed, most weak-minded and perpetually alarmed members of the public.


Their base consists of soccer moms, actresses, felons, MSNBC viewers (both of them), non-English speakers, welfare recipients, heads-up-their-butts billionaires, and government workers -- who can never be laid off. The entire party gave up on attracting the votes of white men decades ago. It's easier to round up votes by frightening women about "assault weapons" and promising excellent free health care to non-English speakers. Yes, a free health care system that is so superior that they exempt themselves and their friends from having to be in it. Liberals frighten people about their health care in order to stampede through ObamaCare. They claim the Earth is overheating in order to seize taxpayer money for solar panels and compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

They call out union thugs to force politicians to accede to insane benefits packages. They stage campaigns of calumny to get their way on gay marriage. Faddish ideas that would never have occurred to anyone fifty years ago -- or even twenty years ago -- are suddenly foisted on the rest of us by the liberal mobs.

Although the left in America is widely recognized as hysterical, unreasonable, and clueless, the "root cause" of these traits has generally been neglected. More than a century ago, Gustave Le Bon perfectly captured the liberal psychological profile in his 1896 book, "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind." Le Bon -- a French physician, scientist, and social psychologist -- was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. His groundbreaking book "The Crowd" paints a disturbing picture of the behavior of mobs. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini used his book to learn how to incite a mob. Our liberals could have been Le Bon's study subjects.

Even the left-wing Guardian has admitted that Le Bon's study of crowd behavior was "possibly the most influential work of psychology ever written." Presumably recognizing themselves in his psychological profile, liberals have recently tried to undermine Le Bon. They have complained that he merely "articulated the propertied classes' fear of the mob." Who likes mobs? Renters? Window manufacturers? Rope salesmen? Liberals also objected that Le Bon did not hold the police accountable for a mob's behavior -- which is like demanding that we take into account the length of the rape victim's skirt.

It is revealing that liberals so fear Le Bon that they try to sully him as "controversial" and "reactionary." (Those particular complaints, incidentally, were lodged by liberal activist George Monbiot, who has called for "citizen's arrests" of former government offiials from George W. Bush's UN ambassador John Bolton to former British prime minister Tony Blair. No wonder he doesn't like psychological studies of mob behavior.)


It was all the usual claptrap, but the piercing truth of Le Bon's study speaks for itself. Liberals wouldn't go after him if, even a century later, his theories didn't still ring true. All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism -- simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, fear of novelty, inability to follow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory ideas, being transfixed by images, a religious worship of their leaders, and a blind hatred of their opponents.

Many of liberals' peculiarities are understandable only when one realizes that they are a mob. For example, a crowd's ability to grasp only the simplest ideas is reflected in the interminable slogans.

Liberals have boatloads of them: Bush Lied, Kids Died! Our Bodies, Our Selves! No Blood for Oil! No Justice, No Peace! Save the Whales; Love Your Mother (Earth); Ban the Bomb; Make Love, Not War; Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican; Diversity Is Our Strength! Save the Planet! Pro-Choice, Pro-Child! Support Our Troops, Bring them Home! Co-Exist! Hey, Hey, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? Dissent Is Patriotic! War Is Not the Answer! Go Green! Healthcare Is a Right, Not a Privilege! Imagine Peace; Celebrate Diversity! Beat the Bushes for Peace! No Nukes! Give Peace a Chance; Think Globally/Act Locally; No Tax Cuts for the Rich; Save the Planet! Venceremos! One, Two, Three, Four, We Don't Want Your F--King War! Bush = Hitler; Hell No, We Won't Go! Off the Pig! Eat the Rich! Die Yuppie Scum! Peace Now! We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting For! Solidarity Forever! Bring America Home! You Can't Hug a Child with Nuclear Arms; Meat Is Murder! Books Not Bombs! Fight the Power! Yes We Can!

And those are just the ones on my neighbor's car.

My heart swoons on what the next pages hold!! She is my hero! Another page turning best seller!!! :Bowdown:

[trish]

The Tea Bagging Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Tea Baggers activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs -- they are the mob.

[Faldur]

The Tea Bagging Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Tea Baggers activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs -- they are the mob.

http://www.goozex.com/community/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/64/0028.desperation_5F00_452x361.jpg

[Erika1487]

The Tea Bagging Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Tea Baggers activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs -- they are the mob.

So are you admitting that the Democratic Party enjoys tea bagging also? Well at least Barney Frank anyway:dancing:

[trish]

Really? That's your comeback?? All three of you sound pretty desperate.

[Faldur]

Really? That's your comeback?? All three of you sound pretty desperate.

Is there an invisible person in the room? 3 of us? NEVERMIND.. you were including the good looking blonde..

http://www.distributedrepublic.net/port/images/Coulter.gif

[trish]

Is there an invisible person in the room? 3 of us? NEVERMIND.. you were including the good looking blonde..Of course I was. Really quick on the uptake there, aren't you? lol

[onmyknees]

The Tea Bagging Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Tea Baggers activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs -- they are the mob.

You're boring us with your statements, and no back up. Coulter wrote an interesting book backed up by facts and historical data. Where's yours? ( hears crickets )

We're waiting for the lazy, yet inevitable cry of racism....That usually takes the place of a pragmatic retort.

[Faldur]

Of course I was. Really quick on the uptake there, aren't you? lol

Nobel Economists are deep thinkers.. :geek:

[trish]

To bad you aren't one.

[trish]

we're waiting for the lazy, yet inevitable cry of racism....that usually takes the place of a pragmatic retort.wtf??

[Prospero]

I feel a deep heave of nausea when Ms Coulter's name is mentioned. She is a noble heir to Herr Goebbels.

[robertlouis]

I feel a deep heave of nausea when Ms Coulter's name is mentioned. She is a noble heir to Herr Goebbels.

And she always seems to be full of hate and desperate to spit it out. She's certainly articulate, but I genuinely worry about the well-being of people who have such a one-sided view of the world. (Yes, I'm all heart; it's a liberal trait. :whistle: :dancing:)

Over here we have Peter Hitchens (brother of the better-known Christopher), but he isn't in the same ballpark as Anne Coulter.

[russtafa]

:)Wow it's so funny listening to this ,especially Trish's come backs

[Prospero]

I think in the UK - by and large - we just laugh at people like Coulter and Glen Beck. They get no real traction. Look at what a clown Oswald Mosley was seen to be compared to his european counterparts.

YouTube - ‪Adolf - Billy Cotton & His Band‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIXArGh0MBE&feature=related)

[SkankyTrannyAnna]

This is the biggest fail of an argument ever. As if the right wing aren't a 1000 times more guilty of the things she is accusing the left of.

simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, - either with us or against us. remember that one?
fear of novelty, - shitting bricks over changing energy use, shitting bricks over rise of developing world ecconomis, shitting bricks over pretty much anything, they are one ones called conservatives after all.
inability to follow logical arguments, - demanding deficit reduction, then demanding tax cuts.
acceptance of contradictory ideas, - saying they want individual freedom but also they want to bann gay marriage, keep weed illegal,
being transfixed by images, - bible thumping flag-wavers say other are transfixed by images...
a religious worship of their leaders, - literally. they are the ones standing up at the front of crazy mega churches, and look at the palin worshipper, look at rush limbaugh and his 'dittoheads'
and a blind hatred of their opponents. - from the woman who came on TV shouting that John Edwards was a faggot...

[Prospero]

Eloquent .... you got em in your sights Anna x


This is the biggest fail of an argument ever. As if the right wing aren't a 1000 times more guilty of the things she is accusing the left of.

simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, - either with us or against us. remember that one?
fear of novelty, - shitting bricks over changing energy use, shitting bricks over rise of developing world ecconomis, shitting bricks over pretty much anything, they are one ones called conservatives after all.
inability to follow logical arguments, - demanding deficit reduction, then demanding tax cuts.
acceptance of contradictory ideas, - saying they want individual freedom but also they want to bann gay marriage, keep weed illegal,
being transfixed by images, - bible thumping flag-wavers say other are transfixed by images...
a religious worship of their leaders, - literally. they are the ones standing up at the front of crazy mega churches, and look at the palin worshipper, look at rush limbaugh and his 'dittoheads'
and a blind hatred of their opponents. - from the woman who came on TV shouting that John Edwards was a faggot...

[trish]

This is the biggest fail of an argument ever. As if the right wing aren't a 1000 times more guilty of the things she is accusing the left of.

simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, - either with us or against us. remember that one?
fear of novelty, - shitting bricks over changing energy use, shitting bricks over rise of developing world ecconomis, shitting bricks over pretty much anything, they are one ones called conservatives after all.
inability to follow logical arguments, - demanding deficit reduction, then demanding tax cuts.
acceptance of contradictory ideas, - saying they want individual freedom but also they want to bann gay marriage, keep weed illegal,
being transfixed by images, - bible thumping flag-wavers say other are transfixed by images...
a religious worship of their leaders, - literally. they are the ones standing up at the front of crazy mega churches, and look at the palin worshipper, look at rush limbaugh and his 'dittoheads'
and a blind hatred of their opponents. - from the woman who came on TV shouting that John Edwards was a faggot...Bravo, bravo:claps:claps:claps:claps:claps

[robertlouis]

Anne Coulter is the most articulate exponent of this generation's extreme mouthpieces of right-wing hate and fear.

She's maintaining the tradition of strategic paranoia that started with Nixon in the 70s and has been a mainstay of Republican politics ever since. What he laid down means that there is little chance of genuine bi-partisanship in US politics for generations to come.

[Stavros]

Ann Coulter cites Gustave Le Bon's Psychologie des Foules as a guide to 'mobs' or 'crowds' but has failed to note the key point in Le Bon's work: the people in question are 'in a moment', that is, congregating outside a town hall, army barracks, war memorial or whatever public space it is: Coulter is taking a neutral word 'crowd', mixing it with a pejorative one 'mob', and taking them out of a precise moment and replacing them as a solid block of people with shared opinions: more a segment of society or sector or society than the Foules Le Bon was talking about. One of the curiosities of real crowds is that they can be made up of diverse opinion: a crowd of people attending a rally outside the Lincoln Memorial or in Trafalgar Square may contain all sorts of policial views: a Mob, by contrast, will often be like-minded people whose aim is some form of disturbance of the peace, which is why the word 'mob' is pejorative. There is no evidence that Hitler read Le Bon, but as Ian Kershaw notes in his recent biography, Hitler did read a JR Rossbach, a Munich-based neurologist who summarised Le Bon's work in a book on the psychology of the masses. None of this is relevant to the divisions between left and right, but Coulter, whoever she is, would not want to propose diversity of thought within political spectra let alone what she imagines to be 'the left' -after all there are Americans who think Barack Obama is a 'Socialist', and I once met a woman who stated with iron conviction that FD Roosevelt was a 'Communist'....

[Erika1487]

This is the biggest fail of an argument ever. As if the right wing aren't a 1000 times more guilty of the things she is accusing the left of.

simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, - either with us or against us. remember that one?
fear of novelty, - shitting bricks over changing energy use, shitting bricks over rise of developing world ecconomis, shitting bricks over pretty much anything, they are one ones called conservatives after all.
inability to follow logical arguments, - demanding deficit reduction, then demanding tax cuts.
acceptance of contradictory ideas, - saying they want individual freedom but also they want to bann gay marriage, keep weed illegal,
being transfixed by images, - bible thumping flag-wavers say other are transfixed by images...
a religious worship of their leaders, - literally. they are the ones standing up at the front of crazy mega churches, and look at the palin worshipper, look at rush limbaugh and his 'dittoheads'
and a blind hatred of their opponents. - from the woman who came on TV shouting that John Edwards was a faggot...

Hmmm I find this agruement intresting considering your from Yorkshire......Let's take a REAL look into your own House of Commons shall we?? Labour and Liberal Democrat lost how many seats in The House of Commons??? Hmmm lets see oh yeah 107!! Thats right 107 seats beause the failed to do thier damn job plain and simple! The Conservative party is on the rise and they just like my friends in the Republican party are in charge.......don't like the idea......tough shit have an election......oh thats right just had one and your party lost!!
The Republicans and The Conservative Party (Tory) are what America & England want! Don't believe me??? Ask people in the street that want thier jobs back, a decent place to live, law & order in the streets. This is what the people wanted and we the Republican Party the Party of Ann Coulter The Conservative party the party of Margret Thatcher are bringing back. :party:

[robertlouis]

Hmmm I find this agruement intresting considering your from Yorkshire......Let's take a REAL look into your own House of Commons shall we?? Labour and Liberal Democrat lost how many seats in The House of Commons??? Hmmm lets see oh yeah 107!! Thats right 107 seats beause the failed to do thier damn job plain and simple! The Conservative party is on the rise and they just like my friends in the Republican party are in charge.......don't like the idea......tough shit have an election......oh thats right just had one and your party lost!!
The Republicans and The Conservative Party (Tory) are what America & England want! Don't believe me??? Ask people in the street that want thier jobs back, a decent place to live, law & order in the streets. This is what the people wanted and we the Republican Party the Party of Ann Coulter The Conservative party the party of Margret Thatcher are bringing back. :party:

Couple of facts to upset your applecart, Erika. Prior to the 2010 election Labour were in power. The Liberal Democrats, along with the Conservatives, were in opposition. After the election no party had an overall majority, so for the first time in a generation, there was a hung parliament and eventually a coalition between the Conservatives and the LibDems in partnership.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for conservatism. And while there are still some deluded backwoodsmen on the Tory back benches, I suspect that if you asked David Cameron and his close colleagues if they would like to bring back Thatcherism in its 80s guise they would give you a resounding negative.

The generation that voted for Thatcher are dead or rapidly falling off the twig. There's little real appetite for her scorched earth approach to the economy. And her policies were as socially divisive as anything passed into law since the Corn Laws in the 1830s.

[russtafa]

this Ann Coulter must be a a cool chick if every one hates her

[Erika1487]

Ann Coulter cites Gustave Le Bon's Psychologie des Foules as a guide to 'mobs' or 'crowds' but has failed to note the key point in Le Bon's work: the people in question are 'in a moment', that is, congregating outside a town hall, army barracks, war memorial or whatever public space it is: Coulter is taking a neutral word 'crowd', mixing it with a pejorative one 'mob', and taking them out of a precise moment and replacing them as a solid block of people with shared opinions: more a segment of society or sector or society than the Foules Le Bon was talking about. One of the curiosities of real crowds is that they can be made up of diverse opinion: a crowd of people attending a rally outside the Lincoln Memorial or in Trafalgar Square may contain all sorts of policial views: a Mob, by contrast, will often be like-minded people whose aim is some form of disturbance of the peace, which is why the word 'mob' is pejorative. There is no evidence that Hitler read Le Bon, but as Ian Kershaw notes in his recent biography, Hitler did read a JR Rossbach, a Munich-based neurologist who summarised Le Bon's work in a book on the psychology of the masses. None of this is relevant to the divisions between left and right, but Coulter, whoever she is, would not want to propose diversity of thought within political spectra let alone what she imagines to be 'the left' -after all there are Americans who think Barack Obama is a 'Socialist', and I once met a woman who stated with iron conviction that FD Roosevelt was a 'Communist'....

You are right FDR was not a Communist, but is Vice-President Henry A Wallace sure as hell was..........

In 1944 the Institute of Pacific Relations, according to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, "disseminated and sought to popularize false information including information originating from Soviet and Communist sources," published a fifty-six-page pamphlet, Our Job in Asia, which was allegedly written by Vice-President Wallace. "The Russians," the author of the pamphlet claimed, "have demonstrated their friendly attitude toward China by their willingness to refrain from intervening in China's internal affairs." Some years later -- after the collapse of the American allied Kuomintang government to the Comintern sponsored Maoist regime and in the midst of the Korean War which cost 53,000 American lives, on October 17, 1951, Wallace testified before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Wallace admitted: "It begins to look, for the time being at any rate, that my size-up as made in 1944 was incorrect." Wallace further admitted under oath that most of a book entitled Soviet Asia Mission written under his name detailing his official trip to Soviet Siberia and China in 1944 had actually been written by Andrew J. Steiger, a person identified under oath as a member of the Communist party.

[Ineeda SM]

this Ann Coulter must be a a cool chick if every one hates her

Ann Coulter is the type who would steal money from her mom, take her daddys wallet, take her little brothers candy, replace her big sisters birth control pills with Tic-Tac breath mints, kick the dog until it bleeds, let the air out of the neighbors car tires, pour sugar in your gas tank, then blame the girl across the street who is prettier and everyone likes better.

She is a republican demon that makes Rush and Glenn look like saints. Almost 90% of anything she says is a 100% lie. She is a bully who would shoot you dead if you spilled water on her new shoes. She thinks she is perfect and beautiful, but I truely think she is a guy. Seriously.

Does that about cover it for you? Everything "SKANKY TRANNY ANNA said was absofuckinglutely right on the money.

[robertlouis]

You are right FDR was not a Communist, but is Vice-President Henry A Wallace sure as hell was..........

In 1944 the Institute of Pacific Relations, according to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, "disseminated and sought to popularize false information including information originating from Soviet and Communist sources," published a fifty-six-page pamphlet, Our Job in Asia, which was allegedly written by Vice-President Wallace. "The Russians," the author of the pamphlet claimed, "have demonstrated their friendly attitude toward China by their willingness to refrain from intervening in China's internal affairs." Some years later -- after the collapse of the American allied Kuomintang government to the Comintern sponsored Maoist regime and in the midst of the Korean War which cost 53,000 American lives, on October 17, 1951, Wallace testified before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Wallace admitted: "It begins to look, for the time being at any rate, that my size-up as made in 1944 was incorrect." Wallace further admitted under oath that most of a book entitled Soviet Asia Mission written under his name detailing his official trip to Soviet Siberia and China in 1944 had actually been written by Andrew J. Steiger, a person identified under oath as a member of the Communist party.

Mildly disingenuous, Erika. The guy who wrote the report was a communist. Nothing in what you posted indicates directly that Wallace was one himself.

There's certainly everything to suggest that US policy towards the Kuomintang was a shambles from start to finish, with vast funds being funneled into Chiang Kai Shek's coffers in the as it proved vain hope, that he would use the money to aid the allies in Burma and China itself in the struggle against the Japanese. Instead he focused on his private war with Mao's communists and pretty much ignored the allies. Stilwell, the US commanding general in the Chinese theatre was duped entirely.

There is therefore a strong argument to say that the failure of US policy in China and the duplicity of Chiang Kai Shek, aided by the Europeans' focus on regaining their former colonies, contributed as much to the Chinese communist victory in 1949 as much as Mao's efforts. And of course the Russians played a typically cynical and opportunist role, finally declaring war on Japan only after Hiroshima as part of a concerted landgrab in the east to mirror what they were doing in Eastern Europe at the same time.

It's not quite as simple as you suggest.

[Erika1487]

Ann Coulter is the type who would steal money from her mom, take her daddys wallet, take her little brothers candy, replace her big sisters birth control pills with Tic-Tac breath mints, kick the dog until it bleeds, let the air out of the neighbors car tires, pour sugar in your gas tank, then blame the girl across the street who is prettier and everyone likes better.

She is a republican demon that makes Rush and Glenn look like saints. Almost 90% of anything she says is a 100% lie. She is a bully who would shoot you dead if you spilled water on her new shoes. She thinks she is perfect and beautiful, but I truely think she is a guy. Seriously.

Does that about cover it for you? Everything "SKANKY TRANNY ANNA said was absofuckinglutely right on the money.

Oh indeeda I do miss our little chats. I have met Ann in person and she is kind, warm and quite charming. I believe the real root of the anger towards her is placed in part because she is right on most of the time. I say most, but not all I do disagree with her once in a while.

[robertlouis]

Oh indeeda I do miss our little chats. I have met Ann in person and she is kind, warm and quite charming. I believe the real root of the anger towards her is placed in part because she is right on most of the time. I say most, but not all I do disagree with her once in a while.

Oh I do like that pic, Erika, but if it suggests that Ms Coulter idolises the man beneath that stone then she's dropped even further in my estimation. McCarthy was a loathsome, hypocritical bully who used nazi/stalinist show trial tactics to create a climate of hysteria in post-war America which shamed any claim that the US might have had at that time as the haven of democracy.

Oh yes, and I hear so much about your much-vaunted freedom of speech in the US. Well, it was dead for five years while McCarthy and his ilk stalked the land.

[russtafa]

yeah i said she must be cool, my kind of girl

[Stavros]

You are right FDR was not a Communist, but is Vice-President Henry A Wallace sure as hell was..........

Erika -Wallace was neither the first nor the last to have a biased view of the USSR, that did not make him a Communist or even a Communist sympathiser. You need to show evidence that when he was Vice-President, and when he ran for the Progressive Party as their Presidential candidate in 1948, he advocated bringing the whole of American industry into public ownership, all of its railroads and airline companies, Hollywood, the Radio and Broadast networks, the Insurance industry, and of course, Health and Education: Communists believe in public ownership. They are also atheists, Wallace was a Christian, and a Freemason too. He campaigned in front of de-segregated audiences, he believed the freedom for which people fought and built America should be available for all: He was an American, not a Communist, and you have not presented any evidence to support your case.

[Silcc69]

Didn't she get in trouble for speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans? Speaking of them Mss Erika, I don't think you have ever mentioned them before. I know the mainstream repubs don't even acknowledge there existence.

[robertlouis]

Erika, you've been remarkably silent in response to my last three posts.

Cat got your tongue?

[trish]

I agree, Ann is right most the time; but fifty percent of the time that makes her wrong.

[hippifried]

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Ann Coulter is an entertainer & professional celebrity. I see no reason to afford her any more political credence than Perez Hilton.

[russtafa]

but she's a hot chick

[onmyknees]

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Ann Coulter is an entertainer & professional celebrity. I see no reason to afford her any more political credence than Perez Hilton.


Wow...did you come up with that on your own?? ( opinions are like assholes) What a simpleton you are. No really. Have you read the book? Have you read any of her books? Have you ever read anything that remotely contradicts or challenges your orthodoxy in an attempt at insight , understanding or to expand and challenge your thinking?

You may not like Coulter...you may think she's caustic and abrasive, I certainly understand that..but to compare her to Perez Hilton is the most moronic statement I've ever read on here. You say some dopey things, but that wins the cookie.

Read her bio you fucking idiot. It's at least as impressive as Obama's ...probably moreso, yet all we hear is how brilliant he is. You can't have it both ways jackoff. Your assessment doesn't add up, as usual. Your brain cells contiune to erode. Again...get off your lazy ass and do a little research before making foolish statements or go back to jerkin off to tranny porn. Her politics and conclusions can and should be challenged her intellect and her bio cannot.


Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University in 1984 and received her law degree at University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Coulter served as a law clerk in Kansas City for Pasco Bowman II of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. After briefly working in private practice in New York City, Coulter went to work for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, handling crime and immigration issues for Sen. Spencer Abraham of Michigan.

She has sold more books with her 6 New York Times Best Sellers than any author in the non fiction category in a decade.

[Erika1487]

Oh I do like that pic, Erika, but if it suggests that Ms Coulter idolises the man beneath that stone then she's dropped even further in my estimation. McCarthy was a loathsome, hypocritical bully who used nazi/stalinist show trial tactics to create a climate of hysteria in post-war America which shamed any claim that the US might have had at that time as the haven of democracy.

Oh yes, and I hear so much about your much-vaunted freedom of speech in the US. Well, it was dead for five years while McCarthy and his ilk stalked the land.

Back when the McCarthy hearings were going on a little ditty called the cold war was really heating up and we were trying to expose commies for what they were!!! I do not agree with the tact that was used by McCarthy but they were effctive to say the least. The whole McCarthy Jay Edgar Hoover era was defined by their ablity to hunt this scum down and NAME NAMES!!!!!

[Erika1487]

:iagree:
but she's a hot chick

[Erika1487]

Didn't she get in trouble for speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans? Speaking of them Mss Erika, I don't think you have ever mentioned them before. I know the mainstream repubs don't even acknowledge there existence.

No she spoke at GoProud event!
BTW GoProud is the preferd gay group within GOP, they donate a good amount of money & make little fuss about policy.

[Erika1487]

:iagree:
Wow...did you come up with that on your own?? ( opinions are like assholes) What a simpleton you are. No really. Have you read the book? Have you read any of her books? Have you ever read anything that remotely contradicts or challenges your orthodoxy in an attempt at insight , understanding or to expand and challenge your thinking?

You may not like Coulter...you may think she's caustic and abrasive, I certainly understand that..but to compare her to Perez Hilton is the most moronic statement I've ever read on here. You say some dopey things, but that wins the cookie.

Read her bio you fucking idiot. It's at least as impressive as Obama's ...probably moreso, yet all we hear is how brilliant he is. You can't have it both ways jackoff. Your assessment doesn't add up, as usual. Your brain cells contiune to erode. Again...get off your lazy ass and do a little research before making foolish statements or go back to jerkin off to tranny porn. Her politics and conclusions can and should be challenged her intellect and her bio cannot.


Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University in 1984 and received her law degree at University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Coulter served as a law clerk in Kansas City for Pasco Bowman II of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. After briefly working in private practice in New York City, Coulter went to work for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, handling crime and immigration issues for Sen. Spencer Abraham of Michigan.

She has sold more books with her 6 New York Times Best Sellers than any author in the non fiction category in a decade.

:iagree:

[Ineeda SM]

OH YEAH she/he is so hot. Now look at the real Ann Coulter without the air-brushing and touch ups.

[Ineeda SM]

Back when the McCarthy hearings were going on a little ditty called the cold war was really heating up and we were trying to expose commies for what they were!!! I do not agree with the tact that was used by McCarthy but they were effctive to say the least. The whole McCarthy Jay Edgar Hoover era was defined by their ablity to hunt this scum down and NAME NAMES!!!!!

Yes and hundreds of innocent people got blacklisted and lost their jobs and homes, and went to jail for nothing.......Yes it was real effective. McCarthy was a witch-hunting scumbag extremist. The perfect republican.

[Ineeda SM]

Oh indeeda I do miss our little chats.

Yes me too. Nice tits by the way.

[Erika1487]

Couple of facts to upset your applecart, Erika. Prior to the 2010 election Labour were in power. The Liberal Democrats, along with the Conservatives, were in opposition. After the election no party had an overall majority, so for the first time in a generation, there was a hung parliament and eventually a coalition between the Conservatives and the LibDems in partnership.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for conservatism. And while there are still some deluded backwoodsmen on the Tory back benches, I suspect that if you asked David Cameron and his close colleagues if they would like to bring back Thatcherism in its 80s guise they would give you a resounding negative.

The generation that voted for Thatcher are dead or rapidly falling off the twig. There's little real appetite for her scorched earth approach to the economy. And her policies were as socially divisive as anything passed into law since the Corn Laws in the 1830s.

I beg to differ good sir. I believe that the Conservatives and The Liberal Democrats, worked together to beat a common enemy Labour.
You see this came about here in America back in 2000 win then The Republican party poured money inti the Green party of Ralph Nader to defeat a common enemy Al Gore!! If the GOP did not help out nader to run flank on gore to siphon 90,000 votes off Gore's democratic base Our man Bush would have lost. So you see often times it is a nessary evil to work with your rival if the common enemy is the devil!!!

[Erika1487]

Yes me too. Nice tits by the way.

Yes thank you:)

[Ineeda SM]

I beg to differ good sir. I believe that the Conservatives and The Liberal Democrats, worked together to beat a common enemy Labour.
You see this came about here in America back in 2000 win then The Republican party poured money inti the Green party of Ralph Nader to defeat a common enemy Al Gore!! If the GOP did not help out nader to run flank on gore to siphon 90,000 votes off Gore's democratic base Our man Bush would have lost. So you see often times it is a nessary evil to work with your rival if the common enemy is the devil!!!

Your man Bush DID lose. Al Gore had the majority of people votes. The mostly republican Supreme Court appointed Bush as the winner in Florida, with 20,000 votes mysteriously lost in Jeb Bush's state (Hmmm) which gave him more electoral votes.

[Erika1487]

Your man Bush DID lose. Al Gore had the majority of people votes. The mostly republican Supreme Court appointed Bush as the winner in Florida, with 20,000 votes mysteriously lost in Jeb Bush's state (Hmmm) which gave him more electoral votes.

The point was we siphoned 90,000 votes off the DNC tally sheet to begin with! That was the whloe reason to suck votes from Gore with green party funding. Simple really and nader played in our hands like puddy. :violin

[hippifried]

She has sold more books with her...

...& blah blah blah ad nauseum... So fucking what? McDonalds sold more burgers than anyone else & I'm not impressed with them either. I'm certainly not impressed with her. It's been my experience that those who go out of their way to be overly snide & arrogant are usually those with the least to say of any import. I've heard enough of her bullshit to know that she has nothing to say to me. She's just selling another book, & I'm not buyin'. To go out of my way to read her nonsense would require an effort on my part, & I'm not willing to exert myself on her behalf in any way.

[robertlouis]

I beg to differ good sir. I believe that the Conservatives and The Liberal Democrats, worked together to beat a common enemy Labour.
You see this came about here in America back in 2000 win then The Republican party poured money inti the Green party of Ralph Nader to defeat a common enemy Al Gore!! If the GOP did not help out nader to run flank on gore to siphon 90,000 votes off Gore's democratic base Our man Bush would have lost. So you see often times it is a nessary evil to work with your rival if the common enemy is the devil!!!

Wrong again, Erika. The Tories and the LibDems campaigned separately and against each other as much as against Labour during the May 2010 election.

It was only after the election produced an inconclusive result that the two parties came together to form a coalition, not to screw Labour as such, but to move things forward from the impasse that would otherwise have remained. As things have turned out, the LibDems as the junior and much weaker partners have ended up accepting and supporting a fairly straight Tory right-wing agenda.

I've voted Liberal and subsequently LibDem all my life until now. Now I feel disenfranchised and lost because my party's been taken away from me. Thousands of LibDem members and voters feel the same, so once again you are vastly over-simplifying the facts to suit your own agenda.

And now you're claiming that Nader's supporters would have been perfectly happy to see that pretzel-choking fuckwit Bush in the White House with his slavish support of big oil, big business and the miltary-industrial complex regardless of what the possible alternative might have been? And if Gore was the devil, goodness only knows what that would have made Cheney and Rumsfeld!

In light of this I hope for your own sake that your job for the GOP isn't in research or strategy......

[robertlouis]

You see this came about here in America back in 2000 win then The Republican party poured money inti the Green party of Ralph Nader to defeat a common enemy Al Gore!! If the GOP did not help out nader to run flank on gore to siphon 90,000 votes off Gore's democratic base Our man Bush would have lost. So you see often times it is a nessary evil to work with your rival if the common enemy is the devil!!!


The point was we siphoned 90,000 votes off the DNC tally sheet to begin with! That was the whloe reason to suck votes from Gore with green party funding. Simple really and nader played in our hands like puddy. :violin


So on the one hand Nader is apparently a willing ally, and on the other he "played into your hands like puddy"?

A little consistency, my dear, please. It might help to restore just a little of your fast-diminishing credibility. :twisted:

[Erika1487]

So on the one hand Nader is apparently a willing ally, and on the other he "played into your hands like puddy"?

A little consistency, my dear, please. It might help to restore just a little of your fast-diminishing credibility. :twisted:

He was a "willing ally" because we sent money to his campain!!
Nader hated the GOP brass, but lets be honest his campaign was a joke from the begining we "knew" he was not taking our votes just Gore's!
Soooooo in the closest polling state in the 2000 Election we gave through thrid parties lots of money for Mr Naders "volunteers" to spread his message in Fla. He gladly took the money he gets 90,000 votes in Fla & we win plain & simple :)

[robertlouis]

He was a "willing ally" because we sent money to his campain!!
Nader hated the GOP brass, but lets be honest his campaign was a joke from the begining we "knew" he was not taking our votes just Gore's!
Soooooo in the closest polling state in the 2000 Election we gave through thrid parties lots of money for Mr Naders "volunteers" to spread his message in Fla. He gladly took the money he gets 90,000 votes in Fla & we win plain & simple :)

"Plain and simple" sounds devious and cynical to me, but hey, I'm just a voter and of course we don't really matter.

So throw the hanging chads back into the mix and we can all agree it was a fair fight.....

[robertlouis]

Yes and hundreds of innocent people got blacklisted and lost their jobs and homes, and went to jail for nothing.......Yes it was real effective. McCarthy was a witch-hunting scumbag extremist. The perfect republican.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Yep, anyone with mildly left-wing sympathies or a history thereof was suspect in the HUAC's purview, but how many of those denounced or jailed had actual links to Moscow? Barely a handful.

America as the home of free speech and free thought? Any American with a shred of decency should be thoroughly ashamed of what happened back then.

Excuse me while I have a hollow laugh.

[NYBURBS]

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Yep, anyone with mildly left-wing sympathies or a history thereof was suspect in the HUAC's purview, but how many of those denounced or jailed had actual links to Moscow? Barely a handful.

America as the home of free speech and free thought? Any American with a shred of decency should be thoroughly ashamed of what happened back then.

Excuse me while I have a hollow laugh.

It is shameful, but unfortunately it's not that uncommon in our history. The particular topics or targets change, but the mindset has been pretty consistent.

[robertlouis]

It is shameful, but unfortunately it's not that uncommon in our history. The particular topics or targets change, but the mindset has been pretty consistent.

It's not entirely uncommon over here either, tbh, but at least our political discourse is neither as hysterical nor violent as it is in the US. It's the polarisation of US politics and the hyped language of the rhetoric which lay down the possibility of individual or mob-driven acts of political violence. It's a potential that genuinely worries me as a concerned observer.

[NYBURBS]

Hmmm I find this agruement intresting considering your from Yorkshire......Let's take a REAL look into your own House of Commons shall we?? Labour and Liberal Democrat lost how many seats in The House of Commons??? Hmmm lets see oh yeah 107!! Thats right 107 seats beause the failed to do thier damn job plain and simple! The Conservative party is on the rise and they just like my friends in the Republican party are in charge.......don't like the idea......tough shit have an election......oh thats right just had one and your party lost!!
The Republicans and The Conservative Party (Tory) are what America & England want! Don't believe me??? Ask people in the street that want thier jobs back, a decent place to live, law & order in the streets. This is what the people wanted and we the Republican Party the Party of Ann Coulter The Conservative party the party of Margret Thatcher are bringing back. :party:

LOL, do you really think the Republican and Democratic parties are different from one another in any substantive way? It's more or less the same shit with slightly different flavoring.

As for Ann, she strikes me as a hateful rabble rouser who attempts to exploit the less noble portions of human instincts.

[robertlouis]

LOL, do you really think the Republican and Democratic parties are different from one another in any substantive way? It's more or less the same shit with slightly different flavoring.

As for Ann, she strikes me as a hateful rabble rouser who attempts to exploit the less noble portions of human instincts.

It's a shame. I think Erika is genuinely trying to make a case for the Republicans.

Either that or she's a troll.

But in either case she needs to be a lot more informed, smart and devious to be any good at it.

[Stavros]

I don't know who Ann Coulter is but I know she is worth more than the distasteful comments about her personal appearance; yes, disagree with her ideas, her writings, her lecturing, her backers and so on, and debate it -but to attack a woman, or indeed, anyone, because of their physical appearance is immature and unworthy of democracy.

[Silcc69]

Coulter is not pretty at all. I mean GOTDAMN bitch is ugly as fuck. Give me Palin or Bachman they may say the darndest thing but at least they look good.

[Silcc69]

No she spoke at GoProud event!
BTW GoProud is the preferd gay group within GOP, they donate a good amount of money & make little fuss about policy.

GOProud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOProud)

GOProud supports repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell)[8] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-7) and the Defense of Marriage Act (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)[9] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-8), promotes broader Second Amendment (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) rights[10] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-9) and opposes a Federal amendment (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment) defining marriage. GOProud "focuses strictly on federal issues which means that, institutionally, they don't take a position on state policy issues like same sex marriage."[11] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-tpmdc-10)

What are the NORMAL republican views on this issue?

During a panel at the 2010 CPAC, Alexander McCobin, co-founder and executive director of Students For Liberty (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Students_For_Liberty), opened his remarks by thanking the American Conservative Union (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/American_Conservative_Union) for welcoming GOProud as a co-sponsor of the event. Ryan Sorba (http://www.hungangels.com/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Sorba&action=edit&redlink=1), author of The "Born Gay" Hoax and chairman of the California Young Americans for Freedom (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Young_Americans_for_Freedom), followed by condemning CPAC for inviting GOProud.[18] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-17)[19] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-18)[20] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-19)[21] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-20)[22] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-21)[23] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-22)[24] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-23)[25] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-24) During Sorba's criticism, the audience began to boo. Sorba told the crowd, "the lesbians (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Lesbian) at Smith College (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Smith_College) protest better than you do."[26] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-25)[27] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-26)

Really.....

Numerous prominent conservative organizations, including the Heritage Foundation (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Heritage_Foundation), Family Research Council (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Family_Research_Council), and American Family Association (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/American_Family_Association), among others, decided to boycott the 2011 CPAC over GOProud's inclusion.[28] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-27) Sen. (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/United_States_Senate) Jim DeMint (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Jim_DeMint) also announced he was boycotting the conference.[29] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-28) Sarah Palin, on the other hand, stated in an interview with CBN (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/CBN) that, while she was not attending, she did not object to GOProud's participation,[30] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-29) while Andrew Breitbart (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart) endorsed their attendance, and announced that he would throw a "big 'ol gay dance party." [31] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-30)[32] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-31) The resultant "Big Gay Party" featured guests such as Breitbart, former Republican National Committee (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Republican_National_Committee) Chairman Michael Steele (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Michael_Steele), former U.S. Army (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/U.S._Army) Lieutenant Daniel Choi (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Daniel_Choi), Fred L. Smith (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Fred_L._Smith) of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute), Michael C. Moynihan (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Michael_C._Moynihan) of Reason (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Reason_magazine) magazine, and singer-songwriter
Sophie B. Hawkins (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Sophie_B._Hawkins).[/URL]


At least Palin wasn't bad about this.

2010 Homocon
PayPal (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-32) co-founder Peter Thiel (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Peter_Thiel) hosted the event. Coulter told the audience that she did not support gay marriage (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) and that marriage is not a civil right (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights). Coulter also criticized sex education (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Sex_education) in schools. Barron defended Coulter against some critics, explaining, "Homocon 2010 was a complete and total success. GOProud set out to throw a great party, not hold a policy event, and that’s exactly what we did.

[URL="http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-34"]Coulter goes to a gay event and tells them all of that shit yet you Erika love this lady? It boggles my mind that anybody that is gay would even associate themselves with the republicans. I mean I know you hate the democrats but you aren't going to get through the republicans. I mean ya'll would be better off forming a 3rd party. Not that it would really matter since we live in a bullshit 2 party system.

[Ineeda SM]

The point was we siphoned 90,000 votes off the DNC tally sheet to begin with! That was the whloe reason to suck votes from Gore with green party funding. Simple really and nader played in our hands like puddy. :violin

You say that as if you are proud of such dirty politics to steal votes. Doesn't this strike you as at least a little wrong? This sounds like mob tactics. Votes should be earned by a persons record and performance, not bought and paid for just to change the outcome. You republicans are such hypocrites. You brag that you are such loyal Americans and how we should be proud of our flag and constitution. Then you do something so dirty and un-American, and you are proud of it.

If democrats hired one guy to run as a republican just to take enough votes away from the front-runner, you guys would be the first to bitch, complain, and cry foul play.

[onmyknees]

...& blah blah blah ad nauseum... So fucking what? McDonalds sold more burgers than anyone else & I'm not impressed with them either. I'm certainly not impressed with her. It's been my experience that those who go out of their way to be overly snide & arrogant are usually those with the least to say of any import. I've heard enough of her bullshit to know that she has nothing to say to me. She's just selling another book, & I'm not buyin'. To go out of my way to read her nonsense would require an effort on my part, & I'm not willing to exert myself on her behalf in any way.


LMAO....I rest my case...you're a lazy burnt out old fool with a limp dick and limper come backs. First you insult her intellegence, then when I present her resume ... you respond with some other foolishness..Effort??? Why bother when you can remain an ignorant fool. It's so much easier that way..it's fine to dislike Coulter, Limbaugh or any other right winger that has an impact...you remind me of a child who won't eat his peas ...no particular reason ....he just won't eat them. It's a choice to remain ignorant...in your case a conscience choice. Don't like Coulter? ....fine, but don't be a moron about it. Why don't you bring something to the table?

[trish]

Ann and Rush are so prevalent in the pop-politico culture that no one can be accused of not having tasted the peas. We've seen them, we've tried them and we found them to be stale. Those who swallow Ann's or Rush's salmonella tainted products whole are known to spew from both ends__present company no exception.

[hippifried]

So now I owe her some kind of support? I don't think so. I have better things to do than waste time paying attention to a shtick that consists of nothing more dthan lying about the motivations of others. I don't care why she does it, or how much schooling it took for her to learn how to be condescending. I guess rude can sell books to the morally challenged, but not to me.

Oh BTW: Who you tryin' to bullshit? You don't care about resumes. You only care that somebody's barking lip service to whatever your ideological fetish is. You've made that perfectly clear over & over & over again with your constant parroting. I bring myself to the table. My ideas & ideals are my own. I don't need a bell to follow across the pasture. At least Coulter's smart enough to be snide.

[yodajazz]

The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Democrats activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs -- they are the mob. Indeed, the very idea of a "community organizer" is to stir up a mob for some political purpose. "As so frequently happens when a crowd goes wild," historian Eric Durschmied says, "there is always one who shouts louder and thereby appoints himself as their leader."1 Those are the people we call "elected Democrats."

The Democrats' playbook doesn't involve heads on pikes -- as yet -- but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents, and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas -- these are the earmarks of a mob leader. Over and over again, one finds the Democrats manipulating the mob to gain power. It is official Democratic policy to appeal to the least informed, most weak-minded and perpetually alarmed members of the public.


Their base consists of soccer moms, actresses, felons, MSNBC viewers (both of them), non-English speakers, welfare recipients, heads-up-their-butts billionaires, and government workers -- who can never be laid off. The entire party gave up on attracting the votes of white men decades ago. It's easier to round up votes by frightening women about "assault weapons" and promising excellent free health care to non-English speakers. Yes, a free health care system that is so superior that they exempt themselves and their friends from having to be in it. Liberals frighten people about their health care in order to stampede through ObamaCare. They claim the Earth is overheating in order to seize taxpayer money for solar panels and compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

They call out union thugs to force politicians to accede to insane benefits packages. They stage campaigns of calumny to get their way on gay marriage. Faddish ideas that would never have occurred to anyone fifty years ago -- or even twenty years ago -- are suddenly foisted on the rest of us by the liberal mobs.

Although the left in America is widely recognized as hysterical, unreasonable, and clueless, the "root cause" of these traits has generally been neglected. More than a century ago, Gustave Le Bon perfectly captured the liberal psychological profile in his 1896 book, "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind." Le Bon -- a French physician, scientist, and social psychologist -- was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. His groundbreaking book "The Crowd" paints a disturbing picture of the behavior of mobs. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini used his book to learn how to incite a mob. Our liberals could have been Le Bon's study subjects.

Even the left-wing Guardian has admitted that Le Bon's study of crowd behavior was "possibly the most influential work of psychology ever written." Presumably recognizing themselves in his psychological profile, liberals have recently tried to undermine Le Bon. They have complained that he merely "articulated the propertied classes' fear of the mob." Who likes mobs? Renters? Window manufacturers? Rope salesmen? Liberals also objected that Le Bon did not hold the police accountable for a mob's behavior -- which is like demanding that we take into account the length of the rape victim's skirt.

It is revealing that liberals so fear Le Bon that they try to sully him as "controversial" and "reactionary." (Those particular complaints, incidentally, were lodged by liberal activist George Monbiot, who has called for "citizen's arrests" of former government offiials from George W. Bush's UN ambassador John Bolton to former British prime minister Tony Blair. No wonder he doesn't like psychological studies of mob behavior.)


It was all the usual claptrap, but the piercing truth of Le Bon's study speaks for itself. Liberals wouldn't go after him if, even a century later, his theories didn't still ring true. All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism -- simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, fear of novelty, inability to follow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory ideas, being transfixed by images, a religious worship of their leaders, and a blind hatred of their opponents.

Many of liberals' peculiarities are understandable only when one realizes that they are a mob. For example, a crowd's ability to grasp only the simplest ideas is reflected in the interminable slogans.

Liberals have boatloads of them: Bush Lied, Kids Died! Our Bodies, Our Selves! No Blood for Oil! No Justice, No Peace! Save the Whales; Love Your Mother (Earth); Ban the Bomb; Make Love, Not War; Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican; Diversity Is Our Strength! Save the Planet! Pro-Choice, Pro-Child! Support Our Troops, Bring them Home! Co-Exist! Hey, Hey, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? Dissent Is Patriotic! War Is Not the Answer! Go Green! Healthcare Is a Right, Not a Privilege! Imagine Peace; Celebrate Diversity! Beat the Bushes for Peace! No Nukes! Give Peace a Chance; Think Globally/Act Locally; No Tax Cuts for the Rich; Save the Planet! Venceremos! One, Two, Three, Four, We Don't Want Your F--King War! Bush = Hitler; Hell No, We Won't Go! Off the Pig! Eat the Rich! Die Yuppie Scum! Peace Now! We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting For! Solidarity Forever! Bring America Home! You Can't Hug a Child with Nuclear Arms; Meat Is Murder! Books Not Bombs! Fight the Power! Yes We Can!

And those are just the ones on my neighbor's car.

My heart swoons on what the next pages hold!! She is my hero! Another page turning best seller!!! :Bowdown:

In my view, from this excerpt, Ann Coulter is bad for America. We are all people, no matter what political stance may be. Starting from her title, it is an attemp to 'demonize' her opponents; to not see them as humans, or rational humans. There is also a veiled appeal to racism, homophobia, etc. I know that she did not invent hate; its a basic human emotion. But the whole imagery of the word 'mob' is to evoke instinctual fear. And by the way, fear is said to be a tool of Satan, in the Bible. I dont believe in a "Satan", but I see him as a metaphor for the worst of human motivations.

The other side of her appeal, from what I see is an appeal to Vanity. It's basically saiying "were better than them". We're reasonable people, and they're not, etc. I see this in such statements from others with conservative views, saying such things as, "we work hard for our wealth"; like someone, pouring molten steel 8 hours a day is not.

What's so 'demonic' about providing universal health care? A person like Ann Coulter, turns what should be debates based on reason, into undistinguished emotions, that ultimately lead to a type of mind control. On some level, the masses have always been controlled this way. But there is a higher road, and those were the basis for our founding principles.

[Silcc69]

In my view, from this excerpt, Ann Coulter is bad for America. We are all people, no matter what political stance may be. Starting from her title, it is an attemp to 'demonize' her opponents; to not see them as humans, or rational humans. There is also a veiled appeal to racism, homophobia, etc. I know that she did not invent hate; its a basic human emotion. But the whole imagery of the word 'mob' is to evoke instinctual fear. And by the way, fear is said to be a tool of Satan, in the Bible. I dont believe in a "Satan", but I see him as a metaphor for the worst of human motivations.

The other side of her appeal, from what I see is an appeal to Vanity. It's basically saiying "were better than them". We're reasonable people, and they're not, etc. I see this in such statements from others with conservative views, saying such things as, "we work hard for our wealth"; like someone, pouring molten steel 8 hours a day is not.

What's so 'demonic' about providing universal health care? A person like Ann Coulter, turns what should be debates based on reason, into undistinguished emotions, that ultimately lead to a type of mind control. On some level, the masses have always been controlled this way. But there is a higher road, and those were the basis for our founding principles.

Plus 1

[onmyknees]

Plus 1


It's demonic to label people who disagree with Obama as racist in lieu of a substinitve retort. It's demonic to label people who have concerns about gay marriage as haters in an attempt to stifle thier apprehension and concern. It's demonic and a pack mentality to behave the way many protesters did in Wisconsin. We may not be better than "them" , but we're convinced our ideas are.

Coulter may be the canary in the coal mine....you watch what happens when we're forced to cut back on some of the "goodies" we're currently handing out to 50% of our citizens or risk defaulting on our debt. You think the Greeks have a corner on that behavior ?

[robertlouis]

It's demonic to label people who disagree with Obama as racist in lieu of a substinitve retort. It's demonic to label people who have concerns about gay marriage as haters in an attempt to stifle thier apprehension and concern. It's demonic and a pack mentality to behave the way many protesters did in Wisconsin. We may not be better than "them" , but we're convinced our ideas are.

Coulter may be the canary in the coal mine....you watch what happens when we're forced to cut back on some of the "goodies" we're currently handing out to 50% of our citizens or risk defaulting on our debt. You think the Greeks have a corner on that behavior ?

This is just a comment - I could just as easily have posted it after one of the liberal/democratic posts.

Your politics in the US, and the discourse surrounding them, taking the content here and Coulter's book, shock-jock talk etc, suggest to me that a form of civil war isn't far off. Every time the rhetoric gets ratcheted up a notch the language becomes more extreme and violent in its imagery. I've just been reading two books about the prelude to the civil war and all the portents are there.

It scares the hell out of me and I'm 3000 miles away. What about you guys?

[hippifried]

There's nothing to be scared of. This is nothing compared to the strife we went through during VietNam & the civil rights movement that overlapped, & that didn't turn into civil war either. This is all just a backlash against the WWII generation who escaped the farm & the depression, & instituted all the reforms that these loudmouths are trying to repeal once they came to power. This movement will die with a whimper & we'll move on like we always do. The reality is that every "American tradition" started as a liberal to radical idea that got pushed onto the society over the loud objections of scared conservatives.

[trish]

It's demonic to label people who have concerns about gay marriage as haters in an attempt to stifle thier apprehension and concern.Really? Demonic?? Demonic to label people who hate, haters? Apprehension and concern? Really?? Concern that same sex marriage somehow magically undermines the your own straight marriage? How does work? Are you apprehensive that your wife is a secret lesbian with [a] same sex partner she'd rather be married to? Or perhaps you're afraid you're a latent homosexual who, without legal restraint, might divorce your wife and run off with one of the guys you go drinking with. Give me a break!

[robertlouis]

There's nothing to be scared of. This is nothing compared to the strife we went through during VietNam & the civil rights movement that overlapped, & that didn't turn into civil war either. This is all just a backlash against the WWII generation who escaped the farm & the depression, & instituted all the reforms that these loudmouths are trying to repeal once they came to power. This movement will die with a whimper & we'll move on like we always do. The reality is that every "American tradition" started as a liberal to radical idea that got pushed onto the society over the loud objections of scared conservatives.

Thanks Hippi. Nice reflection. As a pretty-well read student of American history I must say that's a mostly accurate analysis.

However, haven't the goalposts moved a bit?

The Republicans may have tried to wreck FDR's New Deal policies at the time, but they didn't do much repealing in the 50s, whereas Obama's health policy will die in a ditch as soon as they get their hands back on the levers.

And a reflection from the UK: there's a whole nation here shaking its collective head at the right's unequivocal, dogmatic and seemingly unanimous opposition to Obama's health reforms. Every other developed western economy has a form of government-sponsored healthcare in which the private sector plays some part to a greater or lesser degree, where the guiding philosophy is a safety net which nobody, but nobody, falls through.

Not in the US, apparently. Market forces rule over humanitarian considerations. It's utterly, indefensibly crazy.

[hippifried]

Healthcare won't get repealed. & no, the goalposts haven't moved. They're still trying to dismantle the New Deal & the Great Society, & even Social Security. It's a continuing attempt to roll the social clock back to the 19th century, to some mythical scene out of a Norman Rockwell painting. The "me generation" is coming of age, & would rather see the nation collapse or become irrelevant in the world rather than bend their ideology a little. That won't win the country over. Most people are pragmatists. All these teabaggers are so busy crowing over 2010, that they haven't really looked at what happened. The biggest losers among the Democrats were the "blue dogs". the only way to get rid of them was to vote for the Republican. 2012 just might be a lot more interesting than is being reported. It's a Presidential election, & I don't think the country wants a lockstep ideologue in the Whitehouse. I don't have such a low opinion of the electorate to think that they believe governance is as simplistic as it's made out to be.

[robertlouis]

Healthcare won't get repealed. & no, the goalposts haven't moved. They're still trying to dismantle the New Deal & the Great Society, & even Social Security. It's a continuing attempt to roll the social clock back to the 19th century, to some mythical scene out of a Norman Rockwell painting. The "me generation" is coming of age, & would rather see the nation collapse or become irrelevant in the world rather than bend their ideology a little. That won't win the country over. Most people are pragmatists. All these teabaggers are so busy crowing over 2010, that they haven't really looked at what happened. The biggest losers among the Democrats were the "blue dogs". the only way to get rid of them was to vote for the Republican. 2012 just might be a lot more interesting than is being reported. It's a Presidential election, & I don't think the country wants a lockstep ideologue in the Whitehouse. I don't have such a low opinion of the electorate to think that they believe governance is as simplistic as it's made out to be.

This would be the same electorate that voted twice for that pretzel-choking fuckwit Dubya, I take it?

[hippifried]

This would be the same electorate that voted twice for that pretzel-choking fuckwit Dubya, I take it?
Nobody ever cared for Al Gore. All he ever had to do was carry his own State of Tennessee as its "favorite son", & florida would have been moot. John Kerry lost the 2004 election when he accepted the nomination by standing at the convention podium, saluting, & saying "reporting for duty". It was all downhill from there, & when nobody could find a difference in policy during the debates, they voted for the devil they knew.

Shouldn't sell the general public short. We're all members.

[yodajazz]

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj.1.http://img.tfd.com/wn/E3/17E8CB-demonic.jpgdemonic - extremely evil or cruel; expressive of cruelty or befitting hell; "something demonic in him--something that could be cruel"; "fires lit up a diabolic scene"; "diabolical sorcerers under the influence of devils"; "a fiendish despot"; "hellish torture"; "infernal instruments of war"; "satanic cruelty"; "unholy grimaces" fiendish (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fiendish), satanic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/satanic), unholy (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unholy), hellish (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hellish), infernal (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infernal), diabolic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diabolic), diabolical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diabolical)
evil (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evil) - morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

What's so cruel about extending unemployment benefits for a million people whose benefits were set to end exactly two weeks before Christmas? I bet many of those people had children. Yet Republicans were willing to let their benefits end, unless tax cuts were entended for those making over $200,000 a year. And the rates of those in that category were lower than in other times, even without the tax cuts.

[robertlouis]

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj.1.http://img.tfd.com/wn/E3/17E8CB-demonic.jpgdemonic - extremely evil or cruel; expressive of cruelty or befitting hell; "something demonic in him--something that could be cruel"; "fires lit up a diabolic scene"; "diabolical sorcerers under the influence of devils"; "a fiendish despot"; "hellish torture"; "infernal instruments of war"; "satanic cruelty"; "unholy grimaces" fiendish (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fiendish), satanic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/satanic), unholy (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unholy), hellish (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hellish), infernal (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infernal), diabolic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diabolic), diabolical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diabolical)
evil (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evil) - morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

What's so cruel about extending unemployment benefits for a million people whose benefits were set to end exactly two weeks before Christmas? I bet many of those people had children. Yet Republicans were willing to let their benefits end, unless tax cuts were entended for those making over $200,000 a year. And the rates of those in that category were lower than in other times, even without the tax cuts.

I have to agree. Your Republicans make our Tories look like philanthropists.

[robertlouis]

Nobody ever cared for Al Gore. All he ever had to do was carry his own State of Tennessee as its "favorite son", & florida would have been moot. John Kerry lost the 2004 election when he accepted the nomination by standing at the convention podium, saluting, & saying "reporting for duty". It was all downhill from there, & when nobody could find a difference in policy during the debates, they voted for the devil they knew.

Shouldn't sell the general public short. We're all members.

That's true. But it was amazing how difficult it became to find an American prepared to admit to voting for Dubya during that second term - I spent a lot of time in New York, the Valley, Texas, Boston, Detroit etc in those years and I guess they were all on vacation lol.

[yodajazz]

This would be the same electorate that voted twice for that pretzel-choking fuckwit Dubya, I take it?

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004 Bush would have lost, if he lost Ohio. The Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, whose job it was to certify the election results, was also Bush's campaign chairman for the state in '04. Voting machines were taken out in heavy democratic areas, leaving voting lines blocks long, in come cases. Also the electronic voting machines were purchased from a company with heavy Republican connections, formerly called Diebold. Also the electronic votes were tabulated, by an out of state company, in the same building, that handled Whitehouse emails (the Bush-Cheney Whitehouse). Several voting districts violated state law and destroyed the election results making a recount impossible. And a key person, who was set to testify in a Congressional investigation, on the presidential election process in Ohio that year, died in a plane crash, before he could testify.

Other than these things, I guess the election was fair, here in the state. Every presidential candidate, who has won Ohio, has won the presidential election for the last 100 years or so.

P.S. I did forget to mention that there was an issue on the state ballot, in that election, to ban gay marriage as a constitutional amendment. This is one of those issues that draw out conservative voters to the polls. What raised my suspicions was that gay marriage had already been outlawed in the statewide 2002 elections. They claimed that there was some loophole in the passed 2002 law, which had already banned gay marriage, that required a new vote in 2004, on the same ballot as the presidential election.

[robertlouis]

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004 Bush would have lost, if he lost Ohio. The Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, whose job it was to certify the election results, was also Bush's campaign chairman for the state in '04. Voting machines were taken out in heavy democratic areas, leaving voting lines blocks long, in come cases. Also the electronic voting machines were purchased from a company with heavy Republican connections, formerly called Diebold. Also the electronic votes were tabulated, by an out of state company, in the same building, that handled Whitehouse emails. Several voting districts violated state law and destroyed the election results making a recount impossible. And a key person, who was set to testify in a Congressional investigation, on the presidential election process in Ohio, that year died in a plane crash, before he could testify.

Other than these things, I guess the election was fair. Every presidential candidate, who has won Ohio, has won the presidential election for the last 100 years or so.



You may have seen my debate earlier on this thread with the breathtakingly brazen Erika, who seemed worryingly proud of some of the tactics the GOP pulled in order to win in 2000 and 2004, so I suppose nothing should surprise me any more. I remember the bumper stickers in DC during the 2004 campaign - Re-defeat Bush lol.

And this is the country that sends representatives to third-world countries to ensure that their elections are fair, right? You couldn't make it up.

Things are quiet on the other side of the lines. The republican attack dogs must be out on their nightly constitutional.....

[yodajazz]

Really? Demonic?? Demonic to label people who hate, haters? Apprehension and concern? Really?? Concern that same sex marriage somehow magically undermines the your own straight marriage? How does work? Are you apprehensive that your wife is a secret lesbian with [a] same sex partner she'd rather be married to? Or perhaps you're afraid you're a latent homosexual who, without legal restraint, might divorce your wife and run off with one of the guys you go drinking with. Give me a break!

Since legalizing gay marriage, has ruined the sanctity of marriage, it is now okay for married men to cheat.

[Silcc69]

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. In 2004 Bush would have lost, if he lost Ohio. The Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, whose job it was to certify the election results, was also Bush's campaign chairman for the state in '04. Voting machines were taken out in heavy democratic areas, leaving voting lines blocks long, in come cases. Also the electronic voting machines were purchased from a company with heavy Republican connections, formerly called Diebold. Also the electronic votes were tabulated, by an out of state company, in the same building, that handled Whitehouse emails (the Bush-Cheney Whitehouse). Several voting districts violated state law and destroyed the election results making a recount impossible. And a key person, who was set to testify in a Congressional investigation, on the presidential election process in Ohio that year, died in a plane crash, before he could testify.

Other than these things, I guess the election was fair, here in the state. Every presidential candidate, who has won Ohio, has won the presidential election for the last 100 years or so.

P.S. I did forget to mention that there was an issue on the state ballot, in that election, to ban gay marriage as a constitutional amendment. This is one of those issues that draw out conservative voters to the polls. What raised my suspicions was that gay marriage had already been outlawed in the statewide 2002 elections. They claimed that there was some loophole in the passed 2002 law, which had already banned gay marriage, that required a new vote in 2004, on the same ballot as the presidential election.


Good lawd have mercy talk about conflicts of interest.

[arnie666]

Ann coulter went down in my estimations when she put herself behind chris christie for republican nomination to run against Obama. I personally can't stand the man,not so much his politics but the uncouth arrogant way he conducts himself. Truly obnoxious. I also believe he is a plastic conservative,certainly on social issues. There is no way this man will get the republican base behind him and would be Obamas wet dream to run against. He is also fat, and whether it is right or not,his weight will be an issue when up against the lean sharp Obama. His lack of control over his weight, suggests a weakness. All bluster and hot air and nothing to back it up.

I also disliked what she said about Sarah Palin, claiming she is too important to be president of the United States. I took that as a back handed put down and if she had guts ann would openly say ,she now doesn't believe she has what it takes to run.

However I do enjoy her writing ,and will be ordering this book from my lock book shop in the UK ,which certainly raises eyebrows there.Their politics shelves stocked with multiple biographies on Obama traitor ted heath and religious lunatic neo con Blair. It seems the staff there consist of homosexual looking men and hipster chicks. Notice also you libs, that while I do have a disagreement with her, I don't make nasty remarks about her appearance. And I thought the left were the ones who were meant to be tolerant of peoples views and not homophobic?

[hippifried]

I'm not buying any of the bullshit that the elections were rigged in 2000 or 2004. The rancor turns people off, & low turnout favors the Republicans.

[onmyknees]

This is rich from "The Paper of Record" for all you blinded by the light liberals ( Hippy, Silcc, Yoda [ despite his claims to the contrary], and Obama butt boy from afar, RobertLouis)...

The New York Times reviews Ann Coulter's new book cover, but not her book ...despite it being on the best seller list...but routinely publishes reviews of anti Coulter books. You can't make this shit up !! Still believe in no media bias?? If so...with all due respect..you're delusional...
LMFAO ! Coulter's not my favorite author, but when you make the NYT best seller list 8 times without a review because of political bias.....time for The Gray Lady to go down. I can only hope they get sold for a dollar just like that other useless and worthless rag, Newsweek !


NYT Reviews Ann Coulter's Book Cover But Not the Actual Book

By Clay Waters (http://www.newsbusters.org/bios/clay-waters.html) | June 28, 2011 | 17:11
Share

The “Inside the List” column for the New York Times’s Sunday Book Review, compiled by Jennifer Schuessler, discussed Ann Coulter’s latest New York Times bestseller “Demonic” under the subhead “Woman In Black (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/books/review/InsideList-t.html?scp=1&sq=%22ann%20coulter%22%20and%20demonic&st=cse).”

The first paragraph of the Times’ official Topics page for Coulter describes the author as “ultraconservative (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/ann_coulter/index.html?scp=2&sq=%22ann%20coulter%22%20and%20demonic&st=cse),” and Schuessler’s Book Review brief is no less loaded:

When Ann Coulter last appeared on the hardcover nonfiction list in 2009, with “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” some commentators asked whether the conservative attack dog had lost a bit of her sales bite. “Guilty” spent six weeks on the list -- an enviable showing by most standards, but a decline from the mark set by “Godless” (12 weeks), “Treason” (13 weeks) and “Slander” (15 weeks).

Now, Coulter comes roaring back with “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America,” new at No. 2, though her brand does seem to have undergone a bit of tweaking....Alas, the redesign went over less well at National Review Online, where commenters invoked Nigel Tufnel nattering about his all-black album cover in “This Is Spinal Tap,” among other problems. “What I see at least is a flat black cover, that from any distance greater than a foot will proclaim: ‘Demonic Ann Coulter,’ ” one commenter said. “I.e., Christmas comes early for ‘The Daily Show.’”
That review of what online commenters are saying about Coulter’s book cover apparently comes in lieu of an actual book review; Times archives are almost bereft of actual reviews of Coulter’s books, even as Schuessler admits that they routinely make the paper's bestseller list. The Times has even published reviews (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/books/Heilbrunn.t.html?sq=godless%20coulter&st=nyt&scp=6&pagewanted=all) of anti-Coulter books. But as Coulter wrote in a column last week (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-06-22.html), “With only one review -- not in the Book Review -- after eight New York Times best-sellers, the editors can rest assured that I know they don't like me.”

[robertlouis]

This is rich from "The Paper of Record" for all you blinded by the light liberals ( Hippy, Silcc, Yoda [ despite his claims to the contrary], and Obama butt boy from afar, RobertLouis)...

The New York Times reviews Ann Coulter's new book cover, but not her book ...despite it being on the best seller list...but routinely publishes reviews of anti Coulter books. You can't make this shit up !! Still believe in no media bias?? If so...with all due respect..you're delusional...
LMFAO ! Coulter's not my favorite author, but when you make the NYT best seller list 8 times without a review because of political bias.....time for The Gray Lady to go down. I can only hope they get sold for a dollar just like that other useless and worthless rag, Newsweek !


NYT Reviews Ann Coulter's Book Cover But Not the Actual Book

By Clay Waters (http://www.newsbusters.org/bios/clay-waters.html) | June 28, 2011 | 17:11
Share

The “Inside the List” column for the New York Times’s Sunday Book Review, compiled by Jennifer Schuessler, discussed Ann Coulter’s latest New York Times bestseller “Demonic” under the subhead “Woman In Black (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/books/review/InsideList-t.html?scp=1&sq=%22ann%20coulter%22%20and%20demonic&st=cse).”

The first paragraph of the Times’ official Topics page for Coulter describes the author as “ultraconservative (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/ann_coulter/index.html?scp=2&sq=%22ann%20coulter%22%20and%20demonic&st=cse),” and Schuessler’s Book Review brief is no less loaded:

When Ann Coulter last appeared on the hardcover nonfiction list in 2009, with “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” some commentators asked whether the conservative attack dog had lost a bit of her sales bite. “Guilty” spent six weeks on the list -- an enviable showing by most standards, but a decline from the mark set by “Godless” (12 weeks), “Treason” (13 weeks) and “Slander” (15 weeks).

Now, Coulter comes roaring back with “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America,” new at No. 2, though her brand does seem to have undergone a bit of tweaking....Alas, the redesign went over less well at National Review Online, where commenters invoked Nigel Tufnel nattering about his all-black album cover in “This Is Spinal Tap,” among other problems. “What I see at least is a flat black cover, that from any distance greater than a foot will proclaim: ‘Demonic Ann Coulter,’ ” one commenter said. “I.e., Christmas comes early for ‘The Daily Show.’”
That review of what online commenters are saying about Coulter’s book cover apparently comes in lieu of an actual book review; Times archives are almost bereft of actual reviews of Coulter’s books, even as Schuessler admits that they routinely make the paper's bestseller list. The Times has even published reviews (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/books/Heilbrunn.t.html?sq=godless%20coulter&st=nyt&scp=6&pagewanted=all) of anti-Coulter books. But as Coulter wrote in a column last week (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-06-22.html), “With only one review -- not in the Book Review -- after eight New York Times best-sellers, the editors can rest assured that I know they don't like me.”

Why does being a distant supporter of Obama make me a "butt-boy"? I might argue with your views but I wouldn't stoop so low as to bring your sexuality into it.

[yodajazz]

I'm not buying any of the bullshit that the elections were rigged in 2000 or 2004. The rancor turns people off, & low turnout favors the Republicans.
The elections in 2000 and 2004 were close. It is not necessary to rig every state, just a key one or two to change the course of history. I'll bet you could find documentation about Ohio in 2004, with a simple search. Even in my post, a left out a couple of other suspicious things.