Ann Coulter defends McCarthyism.

The Drudge Report is offering up a few quotes out of Ann Coulter’s upcoming book titled TREASON: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism that would suggest that AC views former Senator Joe McCarthy as a sort of martyred hero:

“The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times,” Coulter pounds.  “Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie.”

“Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals…

“McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. He was tilting at an authentic Communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party. ”


If any other religious cult knew so few basic facts about its own seminal beliefs as the liberal cult does about Joe McCarthy, Janet Reno would gas them.

Despite the leftΒs creation of a myth to defeat legitimate charges of treason, McCarthy had so badly stigmatized Communism, his victory survived him. In his brief fiery ride across the landscape, Joe McCarthy bought America another thirty years. For this, he sacrificed his life, his reputation, his name. The left cut down a brave man, but not before the American people heard the truth.

Man, and I thought Bill O’Reilly was a major douche bag. I can’t begin to describe my amazement that she would try to proclaim Joe McCarthy some sort of hero worth emulating or that his actions were in any way justified. The fact that this book will probably be a bestseller leaves me with the chills to think so many people consider her ravings worth reading.

Update: Solonor has written up an excellent rant about this that you should all go read right now. He manages to say everything I should have and provide a wealth of useful links on the topic of McCarthyism.

85 thoughts on “Ann Coulter defends McCarthyism.

  1. Hey, Hitler had a hell of a good plan too. All he was trying to do was purify the Aryan bloodlines, can’t a guy catch a break? Damn Liberals, I guess they just don’t have any true vision.

  2. Stupid bitch! If it were not for the lieing evil liberals of the past, she would be stuck infront of a stove barefoot and pregnant!
    Its the little things like a womans right to vote, equality in the workplace or even to get an education. Those pesky liberals! What are they thinking!

  3. As I read this, and the background material, I am reminded that my biggest concern about this country is that we allow certain phrases to become valid substitues for facts and thought. In other words, we not only are pliant to propaganda, but we encourage it.

    In the 20’s, the 50’s, the 80’s, the 90’s (at least)…there have been epitaths and catch phrases that replaced intelligent debate.

    In the 20’s, it was “Anarchist!” followed by “Communist” in the 50’s and “Liberal” in the 80’s.

    To have one of these labels applied to you carried the weight of utter condemnation. And the establishment implicitly or explicitly tells you that you should renounce your citizenship if you should choose to point out that those phrases, by themselves, are empty of any substance.

    And as I thought on those phrases, I was reminded of phrases like “Family Values”…which Bush Sr. used in 1988, and which Clinton (quite deftly) stole for himself in 1992. And yet nobody ever seemed to notice that the phrase contained NO substance other than not-so-subtle implications that the Other party didn’t have them.

    Personally, I’d be happy to live in a country where the odd kid jumps off of 5 story buildings more or less successfully into a swimming pool, if only the survivors would actually think about what issues are really involved in the governing and running of this country.

    Instead, we have The Patriot “give up your freedoms for safety” Act which passes without debate. Lists are made to keep people from flying that have neither author nor appeal process. We go to war with a soverign country to avoid the mass murder of thousands or millions of our citizens at the hands of undeniable WOMD’s that exist in that country—and don’t worry about whether they are there or not.

    And as we watch the constitution erode before our eyes, we get people like Ann “Revisionist” Coulter writing books that accuse ME of being anti-american for pointing any of this out.

  4. The rise of people like her seems to be telling us that there is a wave coming…and either we ride it or get swept away. Unfortunately I don’t much care for either choice.

  5. I am no longer offended by Ann’s opinion on this subject, despite my post above.

    Why? Because it’s just one more bit off fluff from a pundit who’s sole purpose in life seems to be to writing books so that that like-thinking people can sit around saying “Yeah, SEE!”  as they read it.

    Unable to think for themselves, her readers just know “Liberals bad” and so if they have Rush or Ann to provide them with ammunition, then they can sound intelligent.

    My specific change of heart came from two quote I saw in the “From the Publisher” writeup on the book. Specifically:

    “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason”

    “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don

  6. Yeah…and the one thing that really irks readers that so desperately want to deny the truthfulness of what Ms. Coulter scribes is that she meticulously “footnotes” each and every instance she cites – and footnotes are SUCH a son of a gun to discredit…so all one is left with is baldfacedly making every effort to defame her with every available malignment possible, ‘cause “you liberals” do not have any other way to deal with the facts – just take a look at the guys that you look to for leadership, Tom Daschle, Terry McAuliffe, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Al “MR INTERNET” Gore…

    And her book is 7 places above lead commie Hillary Clinton on the N.Y. TIMES bestseller list.

  7. Hmmmm, I seem to recall that Michale Moore did the same thing with Stupid White Men…yet that really didn’t shut up any of the neo-cons now did it?

  8. And Jay, just since you seem to think it’s so important, Stupid White men has been on the New York Times best sellers list for 58 weeks and is currently at number 8. I won

  9. My god,,,you guys are really in a fantasy world.  It’s one thing to have ideals and strive for the perfect world, it’s quite another to forget the reality you live in.

    Communists were a REAL threat!  As are Islamic Militants.  This isn’t a perfect world.  There will be racism, religous hate, envy etc til the end of time.  That’s reality. 

    To think of the thousands of lives sacrificed by Americans over the past 200+ years to give us the freedom to disagree and speak our minds, yet liberals in this country believe that only applies to them. 

    Liberalism in it’s current form is heading this country toward a socialist state.  I dare any one of you to name a socialist state in the world better than republic of the United States.

  10. Communists are a real threat these days? Give me a break. Not even BushCo is trying to lay claim to that. Islamic Militants I can see, but Communists still posing a serious threat is a lot harder to swallow. Christian Militants pose a pretty big threat too, but I don’t hear anyone screaming about them at the moment.

  11. Communists in Russia certainly were a threat, but in America where we have the freedom to speak our minds as you noted, the communists in our country were still American citizens with the freedoms guaranteed to every other citizen (even to choose to vote for a communist presidential candidate). As such their rights were trampled on by a government dedicated to keeping itself safe from challenge, and the American people were whipped up in a frenzy against the “Red Menace” just like today they are being led to hate the “Islamic Terrorists”.

    News flash – People of Middle Eastern descent or from predominantly Islamic countries that have become American citizens are, you guessed it, still American citizens! Yet because of 9-11 and the current administrations moves to eliminate constitutional protections with documents like the Patriot Act they are subject to detention due to suspicions of being a terrorist, hostility and distrust from other Americans, and denied access to information to be used against them if a trial is brought. This is happening to citizens.

    Let me ask you, in your fantasy world has the United States managed to convert the rest of the world to our “democratic” way of life or did we have to subjugate them all and use them for slave labor? Oh, and feel free to use that freedom of speech I went into the military to defend since I would hate to be hogging it all up.

  12. Learn to read!! 
    Liberals live in a fantasy world.
    WERE means ‘used to be’. 

    Communists WERE a threat!  Trying to (and succeeding in some cases) in infiltrating every level of government and academia.  For one reason, to secure a means of overthrowing or weaking the US government to a point from which it could not defend itself. 

    Can you name these ‘citizens’ being held against there will?  Where are they?

    Hate Islamic Terrorists?  No, but I say until they change, hunt them down like rats and kill them.

    Sacrifice:  If an American citizen has to give up some of their rights to ensure the personal safety of hundreds or thousands of other American citizens.  So be it!  It’s like the argument about racial profiling.  Get over it!!  If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind.

    I served in the military as well Mr. Paulsen and was proud of it.

  13. Oh yes,,,,and how many Christian terrorists are there?  How many innocent civlians have they killed?  How many planes hijacked?

    Get a grip!!

  14. Depends on how you define “Christian Terrorist.” Some people are referring to Eric Robert Rudolph as a Christian Terrorist. That’s the guy who bombed the Olympics in 1996 (killing 1 and injuring 100) as well as two abortion clinics (killing 1 and injuring 8) and a gay nightclub (injuring 4). Then there’s Oklahoma City bomber Timothy J. McVeigh who rationalized blowing up a Federal Building (168 people dead) on religious reasons.

    One could argue that those Christians who participated in the Medieval Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition were Christian Terrorists as they certainly employed terror in their tactics. Thousands were killed in both though experts disagree with the exact total number. For a follow-up to the Inquisitions the Christians moved on to Witch Hunting, which became very popular and was continued for much longer than the Inquisitions. Again experts disagree over the total number killed, but some estimates put it as high as 250,000.

    So as I said, it really depends on your definition of what constitutes a Christian Terrorist.

  15. Sacrifice freedom so the likes of you can feel a little safer? Screw off! You do not deserve the freedoms you have with an attitude like that, you and those that think like you are a greater threat to the American way of life than any Islamic terrorist. All they want to do is wrench freedom from our dead fingers…you would give it up like a craven coward. Idiotic statements about giving up freedom makes me sick!

    “If you have nothing to Hide, you shouldn’t mind”? How many times do I have to hear that trotted out whenever someone wants to violate your rights? Gee Jo, then you shouldn’t mind a full cavity search at random check points whenever the police or military deem it necessary, I mean if you have nothing to hide right. Why not allow the government the right to barge into your home while you are sleeping and roust you from your bed to make sure that you don’t have any seditious materials hidden away. How about you just save them then time and volunteer to be placed in an internment camp where you can be watched by armed guards 24 hours a day then you really wouldn’t have anything to hide…ever! Ever hear about a little concept known as privacy? It isn’t just for you, it is for everyone.

    Can I name a citizen held against his will? Are you fucking high? How about Jose Padilla who spent more than a year in camp x-ray without access to a lawyer and no idea what the charges against him were? Is that good enough for you? He was held for more than a year of his life that he will NEVER get back and is a citizen.

    Who knows how many Christian terrorists there are but anyone who uses terror to promote their belief is a terrorist and bombing abortion clinics, killing abortion doctors, “fag bashing”, and picketing and harassment at gay funerals probably all fall under that blanket. Shit, while Grandpa Reagan was in office there was a different clinic bombed every few weeks. Feel how you want about abortion but it does not absolve those Christian terrorists of the blood they spilled. How many are there…probably more than I want to know about.

    Get over racial profiling…well how very white of you. Aren’t you a precious little gem of an American?

  16. I’m a masochist.  Some masochists like to be strung up by their toes and doused with hot wax, but me, I watch Fox News and listen to talk radio.

    Yeah, I saw Ann Coulter, the Vanna White of vituperation, on Hannity & Wimp (I mean, Insanity and Colmes) last night.  I kept wondering who wanted to go to bed with the other more, Sean or Ann. 

    Folks, I don’t think it’s worth addressing any of AC’s statements.  Like other peddlers of inane fascist prop, such as Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Savage, AC is merely a symptom of the collapse of democracy. 

    Eric Alterman and company will refute her risible bafflegab and expose the bogus footnotes of “Treason,” as they did for “Slander,” but it won’t matter.  Coulter is a voice appointed by, and on behalf of, America, Inc. 

    The media agenda of America, Inc: To maintain a smokescreen between the masses and the corporate-controlled government, and also to keep us ignorant of the international banking kleptocracy imposed by the IMF, WORLD BANK, WTO, GATS, and such alphabet soup.

    I would like to see, however, a moderated debate between Coulter and Greg Palast.


  17. Mr. Paulsen,
    It is quite obvious you are a misguided and bitter human.  And as with all liberals, it is nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation because all you can do is make personal attacks. 

    I would bet you were enlisted in the military, cause you display a lot of the same attitude many of my troops did.  It is sad.  I’d also bet you got out of the military as fast as you could cause you couldn’t hack it.  Sad.

    And Mr. Paulsen.  I am black you stupid son-of-a-b#%.

  18. And as for your definition of terrorists:
    If you look back in time, you can find many individuals and groups who performed great evil on humanity.  The Spainish Inquisition, the Muslim attempt to conquer Europe, the Crusades, Nazis, the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt, Atilla the Hun, the treatment of American Indians.  But in a modern definition of terrorist, these do not apply.

    A modern terrorist campaign involves the organized effort of a group to inflict terror on others for political gain, and usually involves a minority of the population.  The Israli’s, pre-1948, conducted a terrorist campaign. The abortion clinic bombing and attacks on abortion doctors could be called terroristic.  Now while the actions of Eric Rudolph and Tim McViegh were terroristic in nature, they did not involve an organized and on-going effort, but were more of an individual act.  (I am not diminishing thier effects or the atrocity, just classifying).

    But to say that Christian Terrorists represent a threat to America,,,I don’t see it right now. 

    And if racial profiling had been conducted at the airports Sept 11,,,,,,,the WTC would still be standing.  Perhaps it will take the destruction of a nuclear power plant which could kill or injure millions of Americans for you to step out of your dream world and embrace reality.

  19. James Campion—That’s an interesting way to look at Ann’s book. Thanks for posting that and giving me a different perspective.

    Jo—I know Eric personally and I can say that he’s definitely cynical, but that’s not the same as being bitter.

    I find it ironic that you’re whining about being the victim of a personal attack from Eric and then you turn around and make a personal attack on ALL liberals by accusing us of being incapable of intelligent discussion because we’re too busy making personal attacks. The really funny part is that Eric actually raised several points in his reply as well as responding to one of your challenges to name “

  20. Personal attack? I considered it more a of general attack provoked by your own self-righteous verbiage, though I will admit to being in a foul mood yesterday and I guess I did get a little personal:

    Learn to read!
    Get over it!
    Get a grip!

    If you want to start throwing verbal fisticuffs don’t be surprised when someone joins the fight. You should have known me when I actually WAS bitter, this is the kinder gentler me. Just because you think that I am someone you can not hold an intelligent conversation with (and I see that more as a failing on your part than mine) don’t use that to broadly generalize and paint “all Liberals” with the same brush, generalization is for the weak minded. Be specific and attack me. I promise I won

  21. OK. Perhaps I got a bit personal too.  It’s difficult not too when being insulted.  And I shouldn’t have lumped ALL liberals together.  But unfortunately a lot arguments I see and hear do not address the issues or fact but play to emotion.

    As for my ‘whiteness’.  It is quite surprising to here affirmative action loving born again liberals attaching ‘race’ to a way of thinking. I didn’t know only ‘white’ men could be conservative.

    And comments about ‘country club’ etc just let me know what level of success ‘you’ have yet to achieve.  And oh yes, most country clubs accept blacks, but I doubt you’ve been around any to have known that.

    Yes I am a bit arrogant.  I’ve worked hard, been successful and enjoy the fruits of my labor.  Condescending? Yes, I can be that way too.  I will not apologize.

    I still say the Inquisition does NOT fit the modern definition of terrorism.  For one thing, they (Catholic Church) were far from being a minority.  However, I am not an expert on the detailed history of the Inquisitions.

    As for the witch hunts etc, my personal opinon is that it also does NOT fit the definition of terrorism.  But I think we could be splitting hairs here, trying to classify these atrocities.

    But to hold on to the notion that Christian terrorists pose a threat to this country and even remotely compare them Nazi’s, Hamas, IRA or Al Quada is absurd.  Were Timothy/Eric taking orders from these organizations?  Are the abortion clinic bombings still continuing?

    The thing that does concern me now, is that recent polling indicates >50% of Americans do not believe abortion should be legal.  This may set the ground work for that activity to ‘reerrupt’.
    I personnally feel abortion is murder.  But I can’t condone violence to stop.

    Racial profiling, as the Israeli’s perform, would have stopped everyone of the 9/11 hijackers.  Period, end of story.  There is no argument or what-if against that.  The FBI example is the use of many pieces of information gathered after the fact to say, “They should’ve seen it coming.”

    And yes Racial Profiling would not have stopped Timothy/Eric. But that argument doesn’t mean it should NOT be peformed to prevent other acts of evil.

    As for my military history: My troops were my family.  I would do anything for them.  But that doesn’t mean they were all 100%, grade A performers.  There were always the ‘whiners’.  The ones who didn’t want to work, do the job or go to a combat zone.  Ones who did everthing possible to avoid going overseas.  Those are the ones you remind me of Mr. Paulsen.  And I’m glad it was the easiest working time of your life.  I don’t believe it is/was for 99.9% of everyone else I know busting thier humps in the military.

  22. By the way, I want to thank Max for the entry (I just got a little caught up and didn’t have time to say anything). That is a far less stressful way to look at the problem, but one author spouting revisionism isn’t really what irritates me. It is the thousands of readers who will take her words at face value that is worrisome.

  23. I actually didn’t know much about Ann Coulter before this book came out.  I saw the hype and wondered if it would be ‘good’ read.  The exerpts I’ve seen so far are disappointing.  While I do not believe in the liberal agenda for making America a socialist state, and I don’t think McCarthy was as nearly as bad as Hollywood or the left has made him out to be, I don’t find her book appealing.

  24. I don’t think all liberals want to turn America into anything close to a socialist state. I certainly don’t and I can’t think of any folks I know personally that I would consider liberal that would want to turn America into a socialist state either. I tend to have serious libertarian leanings in addition to my liberal tendencies myself.

    Again, let’s try to avoid painting with such a huge brush.

  25. Jo and Eric,

    I’d like to offer a little insight regarding your debate over the label “terrorism”.  This equivocal term and its constantly shifting definitions are a crucial issue at this time, as it is currently being used as the boogeyman du jour justifying American military belligerence.

    Definitions currently being thrown about involve the focus on civilians as targets, and/or the perpetrators being unaffiliated with a recognized state.  As for motives, political scientists generally attribute coercive goals to acts of terrorism, while our leadership seems happy with the attribution of “hatred of freedom” or some sort of evil gleeful mischief.

    As for the focus on civilian targets, it should be clear to all that states frequently attack civilians to get the enemy to comply in some way (the Nixon/Kissinger bombing of North Vietnam in order to leverage our position at the negotiating table is a textbook example).  Therefore, this definition would expand the definition of the term “terrorism” into areas our leaders and their propagandists don’t want to go.

    This leaves us with the criteria of state-affiliation – anyone engaging in aggressive warfare without the blessing of a state will be labeled a terrorist.  This, however, introduces serious logical challenges to the convoluted rationale our administration concocted for the war on Iraq.  They want to link Saddam with terrorists, but the very fact that he represented a state would negate his labeling a terrorist.  Furthermore, why should the poor and disenfranchised be given emotionally charged labels when their beefs may be every bit as legitimate as those of groups who, through accidents of history, happen to have a seat at the UN?

    Anyway, a far better way to look at the whole mess is laid out by Schelling in his discussion on the distinction between general war and coercion.  “General war” refers to a military action with a clear goal (territory, resources, population) achieved only by clear victory -very few policy convolutions are involved.  Coercion is the threat of pain and suffering with the goal of eliciting compliance – this threat typically is preceded by demonstrations of the ability and will to inflict this pain.

    I have always thought that it would be beneficial to frame discussions regarding political conflict around the world in term such as these, as opposed to muddying up the water with loaded and essentially meaningless terms like “terrorism”.  that way we can avoid some of the knee-jerk factors and actually deal with the causes of the problems.

  26. While you argument was well written, I did notice your only examples were American (specifically Republican) Presidents actions.  And I also noticed your use of the word ‘concocted’ with regard to our war with Iraq.  I was hoping to have better people to debate with, or at least people with an open mind.  That is obviously not the case here.  Talk about towing a party line.

  27. Sounds like these people were educated at the Janeane Garofalo school for intellectually challenged.

  28. Actually “liberal” is not a party so just because I hold some liberal views does NOT mean I am towing any party line. The Democratic party is not progressive enough for my tastes so I really don’t keep up with the news letter. As far as using the word concocted in association with our war of aggression with Iraq, I think that is being generous. I would say that the president lied to the American people. Either that or he is criminally ignorant.

    And Lonnie, we can’t all be obedient little ditto-heads now, can we?

  29. You haven’t been trying to debate in the first place. You showed up, made some snide comments about us all living in a fantasy world as though this declaration would somehow suddenly cause us to see the error of our viewpoints and turn over a new leaf and shower you with gratitude and adoration for revealing some kind of ultimate truth and then acted all hurt when responded to in kind.

    Don’t give me this crap about hoping to find “better people to debate with” when it’s clear that debate was the furthest thing from your mind in the first place. I can’t speak for everyone here, but I do try to keep an open mind about things. Having an open mind, however, is not the same as swallowing every bit of twaddle that someone hands you. You make a lot of claims, but you offer little to back them up. Having an open mind means I’m willing to be persuaded by a good argument, but you haven’t given a good argument you’ve just bitched and moaned a lot. Your last sentence is ironic as hell considering that that’s all you’ve done here is push the standard Republican bullshit. You’ve obviously not bothered to look into any other posts around here or the sidebar or you’d see that I’m not a Democrat OR a Republican so I don’t have a “party line” to tow.

    Before you go insulting the intelligence level of others you might want to make sure you don’t make yourself look stupid in the process. Lonnie brings so much more to the conversation. Nice quip, but it doesn’t help promote your viewpoints in any way.

  30. Jo,

    You are a sharp one!  Yes, I did use the word “concocted” in regard this war.  Touche. 

    Now that we have established your literacy, let’s calmly discuss why I chose to use that particular verbiage.

    It’s because I recognize that our leaders are substituting marketing for statesmanship as they create foreign battlefields to serve as ripe business opportunities for Haliburton and Bechtel.  I’ve come to the realization that the kind of military aggression we’ve been undertaking may actually be less about oil than about the fortune that a hand-full of chickenhawks can make from the privatization of the full gamut of services required by our armed forces overseas. 

    Think about it.  $100,000,000 of our tax dollars (at a minimum) has been earmarked for the war and reconstruction of Iraq.  Already, at least 10% of that amount has been funneled into the pockets of these private companies and a few others who are providing infrastructure and logistics for our troops – without competitive bidding in the sacred marketplace, and with the clear efforts for secrecy on the part of the administration.  Profits from the provision of services would be a lot easier to rationalize than oil profits from a conquered country.  You are aware that Cheney still has a huge profit-sharing egg incubating in the Haliburton nest, aren’t you?  And that George Herbert Walker Bush stands to make a butt-load of money off of some of these deals?

    I use words like “concocted” because of my belief that a major consideration in the policies of our president and his band of neoconservative pirates is the financial enrichment of themselves, their families, and their friends.  And the deaths of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis, Afghans, Brits, and Canadians don’t seem to get their way a bit.

    As for your other complaint about my previous message: sure, I chose a Republican administration for my example – in part because of its clear equivalence with the concept I was discussing, but also because I always loathed Nixon and Kissinger as black-hearted murderers and extortionists.  However, as you corrected implied, I fully agree that plenty of Democratic examples could also be thrown up with equal propriety.

    Like Les and Eric, I do not recognize any party


    Whenever I hear the phrase “war against terrorism,” I think of “1984.”  The most overworked eponym in political discourse may be “Orwellian,” but the Bush administration has made it truly applicable. 

    The three super states in Orwell’s dystopia maintained perpetual war with ever-shifting enemies.  Oceana used war as a way to keep the population in an agitated state of paranoia and jingoism. Sound familiar?  War is good for this, but the trouble is, war ends.  The solution: never ending war.

    Beyond good and evil, terrorism is the power of the powerless.  Destroy Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, et al., and MORE terrorist groups will replace them.  The Bush administration must understand this at some level, if they don’t, I don’t know what!

    How many times have you heard pundits and politicians say “You shouldn’t criticize Bush when the country is at war.”  HA! Remember when we were kids playing tag and we made that rule that you couldn’t be tagged out if you had your fingers crossed?  Everybody ran around with their fingers crossed, right?  So, if you can’t criticize the government while there’s a war on, then there’s a GIANT incentive for the government to stay at war.

    Has Israel one the war against terrorism in 55 years?  Has Britain one the war against terrorism from Northern Ireland in 90 years?  Why do people buy this horsepucky about the “war against terrorism”?  The only we to protect your people and your state against terrorism is to remove the conditions that cause people to commit terrorism to begin with.

    Worse than the war against terrorism its dumbed down Orwellian abbreviation, “The War on Terror.” Don’t get me started on that one!

  32. Max: “remove the conditions that cause,,,,terrorism” 

    And those conditions would be what?  If I were to guess,,,,it would be,,,,give in to thier demands.

    Britain vs IRA: Free Ireland, no problem.  Should’ve done it long ago.

    Israel vs PLO/Hamas etc etc:  Kill all jews, take back land Israel currently has.  I see a problem with this one.

    USA vs Al Quaeda: Lets see.  What do they want? Death to all infidels?  That would me,,,all non-Muslims.  Hmmmmmm.  I see a problem with this one too.

    And Ken,,,,I am not going to frame my questions and criticisms in a way to ‘see’ the way you do.  I DON’T see things your way.  I’ve seen the reality of life outside of our precious USA where many of the liberal minded in this country would never tread or have never heard of.  This reality is what gives me ‘my’ point of view. 

    If you give your lunch money to a bully in school, what is the result?  He’ll take from you again.  If you beat the living shit out of him,,,he won’t bother you again.  Terrorists and MANY cultures outside of America and Old Europe are the same way.

  33. Jo’s right. The Nazi’s in Germany took that same philosophy of beating the shit out of people so they wouldn’t mess with Germany anymore and look how successful that was for them. Obviously the might makes right approach is the only sensible way to handle things.

  34. The Nazi’s WERE the bully back then.  But I’m not surprised to hear you say this considering the other distortions of fact and history that take place in academia and the medai this days.

  35. And Might doesn’t always make right.  Diplomacy and negotiation should always be pursued to the fullest extent possible. But there comes a point when Might in defense of your security and way of life become the only alternative.

  36. Hey Les, there must be something wrong with your HTML tags, the sarcasm didn’t make it through…Wait I see the problem:

    [sarcasm]George Bush is an outstanding president![/sarcasm]

    Hmm, seems to be working alright.

  37. OK.  I didn’t get it.  I admit it.

    So I guess you think Gore would’ve been better?

  38. How do I know, we were robbed of the chance of finding out. Better is completely subjective but I think he would have been much better on some things like protecting the environment and not giving the wealthy the economy busting tax cuts (at least to the degree Bush has, let’s face it Gore ain’t no working class slob himself). And while I am wholeheartedly against Bush’s vendetta with Saddam thinly veiled as a “War on Terrorism” I think that Gore probably would not have responded to 9-11 with a military strike. It may not make sense to you when I say this but I think we were justified as a country to squash Al Queda like the maggots they were after the attack, they hit us we hit them back, that’s fair. What Bush Co. is doing/did in Iraq was a criminal act by a power-mad administration; many people have died and continue to die based on the apparent lie that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

    I am pretty sure that with all of his faults Gore would not have led our country on the aggressive campaign of unlawful regime change. Personally I am working to break the two party system and get some fresh blood into Washington, Republican or Democrat…what is the difference? It is the same old stink.

  39. While you may not believe this, I don’t/didn’t agree with the timing of the war against Iraq.  I think there was ample justification on the basis of non-compliance with UN resolutions.  Unless he and his know something we ‘weren’t’ told, he never sold me on the USA going it alone.

    I also don’t see how Gore was robbed of the election.  After all the counts, a clear number of electoral votes in favor of Bush,,,,I don’t see it.  Many say the Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency.  all the SC did was tell the Florida SC it couldn’t REWRITE Florida law.  Florida law stipulated that if one county is recounted,,,ALL county’s are recounted.  But Gore and the democrats didn’t want that.  But this is an old argument, people have made thier decisions on how to look at it, (Michael ‘idiot/hypocrit’ Moore for example) and people will not change thier minds.

    I don’t think Gore could’ve led us after 9/11.  Liberman I like, but not Gore.

  40. Have you heard about Ann’s next book! I believe the title is HITLER: Genius Misunderstood

  41. “It’s always so comforting when Muslims cite the precise verse from the Quran that tells them killing is wrong. Don’t all empathetic human beings understand that instinctively? What if they lost their Quran that day and couldn’t remember?” (Ann Coulter in “My Name Is Adolf”, 9/11/2002)

    “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.” (Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002)

    Enough said.

    She’s a dangerous, reactionary idiot whose mouth vomits whatever hatred her pea brain is contemplating at the moment.

    Anyone who considers anything she says without serious reflection is simply “not thinking”.

    Another personal favorite of mine is how Ann Coulter attributes the fall of the former Soviet Union to Ronald Reagan…he was just the lucky idiot in charge when they went broke. There was 40 prior years of politics involved in it’s bankruptcy that seems to escape her revisionist views of history. That addle brained actor couldn’t orchestrate the tying of his own shoes, let alone the fall of a super power. Yet she sings his praises as savior of the free world whenever possible. Her revisionist history lesson to the “uneducated masses” on McCarthyism are not suprising to me. What suprises me is that so many supposedly highly educated professionals buy her crap.

    Ann, Go sell crazy someplace else. I ain’t buying.

  42. Hey guys—let me join in the fray

    *rolling up sleeves*

    First off, I think it very telling that Ann is calling for the actuall killing, ie bodily harm, of people who don’t agree with her—and that 3,500 conservatives exploded with applause when she said it.

    Seems to be a conservative way of life—let’s refer to the Civil Rights movement shall we?

    Non violent protestors were shot out, and beaten simply for wanting to be treated like human beings.

    Wow—how loving kind and compassionate.

    How horribly misunderstood were they…?

    I stole this post from another forum—and it echoes my sentiments perfectly:

    If Coulter were a liberal and said all the vile things she says in reference to conservatives, some conservative whack-job would have shot her long ago.

    For some reason, however, liberals don’t seem to have any violent nutcases who brutalize the people on the other side.


    Anti-abortion freaks are known for harassing clinic staff and patients, and even killing them or blowing up the clinics.

    On the flip side, I’ve not heard of any liberals who go to the anti-abortionists’ churches and blow those up, or harass people trying to enter the church by showing them pictures of children murdered in holy wars.

    The KKK is undoubtedly conservative. They’re known for harassing blacks & jews, killing them, and generally spreading the seeds of hatred under the banner of “racial pride” (I guess in order to be proud of something, you are required to hate everything else. So if I’m proud of my homemade chocolate chip cookies, I have a duty to my cookies to go out and destroy all other cookies? Seems kind of stupid to me? Why not enjoy ALL cookies instead?)

    The only black group I can think of with an anti-white, violent slant were the Black Panthers, and they didn’t do a fraction of the damage that the KKK has done. They were also a reaction to the KKK… One could argue that had there been no KKK, there would be no Black Panthers.

    Gay-bashers. People who kill homosexuals for being homosexual are inevitably conservative. I have yet to hear of a liberal homosexual killing a straight person because they were straight.

    It seems to me that all the truly intolerant, violent, and irrational people are on the conservative side of the fence. Most of the people who believe that the solution to their not liking somebody else is to kill them come from the conservative viewpoint. Ann Coulter herself has suggested that Liberals should be driven to extinction… Rush Limbaugh has suggested that the conservatives kill almost all of the liberals.

    And the liberals? We are all too well-adjusted to murder in the name of a difference in ideology… Until it comes down to a do-or-die choice.

    All these people calling for the deaths of various liberals (i.e. jews, blacks, homosexuals, feminists, etc.) would do well to remember that when liberals are pushed up against the wall and finally start fighting back, we’re not the passive lambs they like to pretend we are. We have a history of combining brains and love of freedom into a desperate and effective defence against the intolerant and hateful members of our species.

    The difference is that we hold back until it’s almost too late, while the conservatives are always violent, greedy and willing to harm others to get what they want. Do we have a killer instinct? No- Instead, Liberals have a last-ditch survival instinct.

    Given the type of person who has the former, I’d rather have the latter.

  43. Just to clarify, AC is my first 2 initials, nothing to do with the 6 foot blonde. (She scares me btw…)

    I see the firing back of each side and see very valid points on both sides such as Eric’s “cavity search reference” and Jo’s “Nothing to hide” I agree with both but before I say something that will light a fuse… my political affiliation is none… not even independent… Why you ask…

    George Washington fought and pleaded with his fellow forefathers in the idea of DO NOT MAKE POLITICAN FACTIONS!!! (parties) He saw into the future and nailed it on the head… nothing gets done when people blame their rivals for everything… Ms/Mrs. (whatever she maybe) Ann is a perfect example, as well on the liberal spectrum Al Franken, of why we should have listen to our first president.

    I personally am white. (I hate bring in race to arguments) And when I say white I mean WHITE… I live in the Sand Hills of Central Kansas and the two big wild plants growing are pot and posion ivy. I nothing against pot or pot smokers… I often find there stoned manner very inspiringly/ humorously hospitable. But forget the pot part… I AM EXTREMELY ALLERGIC TO THE EVIL IVY… Ive spent many of my years inside and away from it during the summer, so when I say I’m White… the Klan would prolly turn me down for recruitment… I’d make them look “impure”… hehe.

    What does my creamy-pasty-whiteiness have to do with anything… my former comment on Eric’s and Jo’s vaild points… I dont have anything to hide and will willing let my car be searched by cops if they ask. (My father 25 year with the Dept. of Corrections might attribute to this). I am prolly one of the least likey people to be searched when getting on an airplane if Racial Profiling was the rule of Law. But I would be extremely disappointed/prolly even pissed if I got cavity searched for a random screening. (I’d at least like them to buy me a few drinks first and maybe a phone number afterwards if they were any good… j/k)

    It may seem like Ive been ranting on and making no sense.. but there is a method to my madness… I saw the very hostile messages vollied back and forth between “Liberals & Conservatives” on the above posts. That is a problem, nothign will get done when the other side blames everything on their rivals, and the history books need a fall guy/patsy to point its finger at. (Look at the 9/11 communication failure between the FBI/CIA/NSA etc… Spent Umpteen Million $$$ on searching for who’s failure it was when that money could be used for work in preventing this again and/or into Homeland Security to patch up all Agency loopholes/cracks in communication…

    The method to my madness is very simple: (All the following pertains to Liberals & Conservatives)FUCK MINOR DETAILS!!! Grow some balls on each side take Half the Blame, Acknowledge the other sides successes and good ideas (dont point out the little shit/character flaw type things, only promotes animosity) and at the very least (Allah, Odin, Zues, Jesus, Sheeva, etc. forbid) act like you’ll LET BY-GONES BE BY-GONES When you don’t, or at least the very least make it appear, that a grudge won’t be held… IT EASES TENSION… (Another ice breaker/tension stress-dropper thingy-ma-bob I use(d) is humor. And not in a sarcastic “Fuck you/Suck my dick” manner…

    I hope I made some sense in my Heathen Idiology of Mutual Respect and (I guess) Pacifism/Pot Smoking Hippie/Love, Peace & Chicken Grease Rant…

    But in the very likely chance I am wrong, full of shit, and should shut up… just let me know…

  44. The view of history that simplistically treats McCarthy as a demon or fool on a “witchhunt” relies on a discredited version of history that paints McCarthy as one who hunted for Communists and spies that didnt exist.  That view has been dramatically disproven by the release of KGB files and the opening of spy documents (such as the Venona transcripts) that shows that American Communists actively assisted Soviet intelligence efforts in the United States and elsewhere.  Senator Joe McCarthy confronted government officials engaging in a concealment of communist involvement,  and uncovered an excessively lax security posture with regards to Communists in sensitive U.S. Government posts.  We now know that Alger Hiss, a high level State Department official in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations,  was indeed a Communist and a Soviet spy, and that the Venona files reveal several hundred Soviet agents in the US Govt,  so the fears of anti-Communists like McCarthy were well-founded.

    Arthur Herman, in his is new book, “Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator,”, goes some way in restoring balance to our views on McCarthy from the familar broad-brush phony treatment of him as a bogeyman.  He says that the accuracy of McCarthy’s charges “was no longer a matter of debate,” that they are “now accepted as fact.”  And The New York Post

  45. That’s the problem Patrick. The people that spout McCarthyism the loudest REFUSE to learn the truth beacuse the lie serves their interests better.

    I couldn’t stand to read Ann’s book.  Right or wrong.  Too much mud-slinging.  But on most accounts she is right.

    But let’s get the liberal (democratic) leadership in this country admit that.  Fat chance. 

    And as for the non-violent comments:  Liberals are just as violent as the conservatives.  If you steal money from someone you have violated them.  Whether you do it with a gun or taxes.  It seems all the democrats want to do is tax, tax, tax.  I’m sick and tired of paying 45% of my hard earned money in state, federal, local, property and social security taxes. 

    I think everyone in this country who earns over $60k per year should stop working for 3 months.  And let the poor hard working people of this country pay all the taxes.  I mean, isn’t everyone who makes over $60k rich?  And if you’re rich, you don’t need to work right?  So we can take 3 months off and let someone else pay the taxes for a change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.