PDA

View Full Version : Top 10 shocking things in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Demonic’ that will drive liberals crazy



Odysseus
06-08-2011, 03:08 PM
Just posted because I wanted to see if Wilbur's head would explode. :D


Top 10 shocking things in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Demonic’ that will drive liberals crazy

Her latest book, “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America,” will start enraging liberals with its very title – which is par for the course for the author of such liberal-bashing classics as “Godless” and “Treason.”

The Daily Caller has put together the top 10 quotes and arguments from her latest tome that are most likely to make Chris Matthews’s head explode – and possibly even disturb some on the right.

10.) Democrats are anti-science


Reversing the Democratic mantra that Republicans are “anti-science,” Coulter says it is really the Democratic mob that abhors science and technological innovation.

“The Left’s abject terror of technological development is yet another mob attribute,” she writes.

Quoting Gustave Le Bon, whose theory on mobs is the main intellectual foundation of her book, Coulter writes, “Thus, according to Le Bon, if ‘democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”

But, Coulter argues, “Our liberals are even worse than Le Bon imagined. Democrats don’t merely want to block scientific progress, they want to stop scientific progress, they want to roll it back.”

She then cites, as examples, Al Gore’s call in his “global warming fantasy book Earth in the Balance” for the elimination of the internal combustion engine within 25 years, the Democrat’s 2007 bill to eliminate the incandescent light bulb by 2014, Obamacare, which she says will hamper medical innovation, and the Democrats’ incessant hectoring of the oil and pharmaceutical industries – industries, Coulter writes, that “are two of the most innovative.”

She goes on: “Indeed, the only way to get liberals interested in novel scientific research is to propose going after human embryos,” citing liberals love of embryonic stem cell research over adult stem cell research when the science on the latter is more promising according to her.

9.) Liberals are not a part of the American tradition

“The men behind the American Revolution – the militias, the Minutemen, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the framers of the Constitution – were the very opposite of the mob. Today we would call them ‘Republicans,’” she writes at one point in the book

“Liberals’ history is not this country’s history – theirs is the history of the mob,” she writes in another.

8.) Liberal social consciousness manifests itself in the killing of American soldiers

Though a joke, this one will still enrage:

“If the Weatherman had succeeded in transporting their bombs to the Fort Dix dance, instead of blowing themselves up, they would have murdered lots of U.S. serviceman and their dates. For liberals, that’s social consciousness,” she writes.

7.) Republican “Southern Strategy” was not racist

“The entire basis of the liberals’ ‘Southern Strategy’ myth is the sophisticated belief that anyone who votes Republican must be a racist,” Coulter writes.

“If Nixon had planned to appeal to white racists, speeding up desegregation was not an effective strategy. But he turned around and won an even bigger landslide in 1972, running against George McGovern and the party of acid, abortion, and amnesty,” she argues.

6.) The left (and crazy people) are responsible for all political violence in the United States

“Somewhat astoundingly, in the entire nation’s history, there’s never been a presidential assassination attempt by a right-winger. There have been more than a dozen by left-wingers,” she writes.

“Conservatives, we’re endlessly told, create ‘an atmosphere of hatred and fear.’ This is as opposed to liberals who just go around shooting elected officials.”

After spending an entire chapter – entitled “Imaginary Violence From the Right Vs. Actual Violence From The Left” – documenting her case, Coulter concludes,

“What’s confusing is that liberal historians keep telling us that those angry, contorted faces screaming at black people are ‘Southerners’ – probably someone like Phyllis Schlafly. Only when you realize they are all Democrats – usually liberal, progressive Democrats, in the mold of Wilson, Faubus, and Ervin – do the pictures make sense.

“It’s always liberals: Like Robespierre, they commit violence for the greater good.”

5.) Democrats’ schemes are similar to the schemes of history’s worst regimes

In a chapter detailing the 20th century’s most brutal regimes, from Stalin’s Soviet Union to Hitler’s Germany to Mao’s China to Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Coulter writes, “You will note the similarities in all these totalitarian plans to many of the Democrats’ schemes.”

4.) The GOP has always been the party supporting civil rights, not the Democratic Party

“Angry violent mobs are always Democratic: Code Pink, SDS, The Weathermen, Earth First!, anti-war protesters, and union protesters in Wisconsin,” Coulter writes.

“Like them, the Ku Klux Klan was, of course, another Democratic undertaking, originally formed to terrorize Republicans, but later switching to terrorize blacks. It was Democratic juries that acquitted Klansman after Klansman. It was Democratic politicians who supported segregation, Democratic governors who called out the National Guard to stop desegregation, Democratic commissioners of public safety who turned police dogs and water hoses on civil rights protesters.”

Also: “Democrats only came around on civil rights when blacks were voting in high enough numbers to make a difference at the ballot box – and then they claimed credit for everything their party had ferociously blocked since the Civil War.”

3.) Coulter stands up for the killings at Kent State

“On May 4, National Guard officers were trying to disperse thousands of violent protesters in the middle of the campus. According to the recent reporting of James Rosen, the guardsman were fired upon first, leading twenty-nine guardsman to shoot back at the protesters, killing four students in thirteen seconds,” Coulter writes.

“If Louis XVI had been that decisive, 600,000 Frenchmen might not have had to die. As his grandfather, Louis XIV, had said: When war is necessary, it is a ‘grave error to think that one can reach the same aims by weaker means.’ Though decried throughout the land – and in a Neil Young song! – the shooting at Kent State soon put an end to the student riots.”

This fits nicely with a major theme of Coulter’s book, which is encapsulated in its very last words.

“This nation’s heroes knew what Louis XVI did not: A mob cannot be calmly reasoned with: it can only be smashed,” Coulter writes. “When faced with a mob, civilized society’s motto should be: Overreact!”

2.) Coulter takes on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Martin Luther King Jr. was the heir to Rousseau. He used images in order to win publicity and goodwill for his cause, deploying children in the streets for a pointless, violent confrontation with a lame-duck lunatic: Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor,” she writes.

In attacking King’s legacy, Coulter uses the words of liberal icon Thurgood Marshall, who became the first black justice of the Supreme Court, to aid her in tarnishing King’s reputation. “Thurgood Marshall had always disdained King’s methods, calling him an ‘opportunist’ and ‘first rate rabble-rouser,’” Coulter writes. “Indeed, when asked about King’s suggestion that street protests could help advance desegregation, Marshall replied that school desegregation was men’s work and should not be entrusted to children. King, he said, was ‘a boy on a man’s errand.’”

Coulter concludes, “The civil rights movement had made mobs respectable, to the great misfortune of the nation. In no time, liberals began engaging in what I believe Gandhi called ‘active resistance’ every time they didn’t get their way through legitimate legal processes.”

In a later chapter, she says, “If Nixon had been elected in 1960, instead of Kennedy, we could have skipped the bloodshed of the civil rights marches and today we’d be celebrating Thurgood Marshall Day, rather than Martin Luther King Day.”

1.) Expressing understanding of anti-abortion violence

“But more important, abortion clinic violence should not be filed under ‘Political Violence’ at all. It should be filed under ‘Things Liberals Won’t Let Americans Vote On.’…When there is no legal process for pro-lifers to pursue to outlaw abortion – unlike every policy liberals violently protest – some pro-lifers will inevitably respond to lawlessness with lawlessness,” Coulter writes. “In the first few years after [Planned Parenthood v. Casey], about six more people were killed in attacks on abortion clinics. Most of the abortionists were shot or, depending upon your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle.”

“There were no more constitutional options left to fight judicial tyranny on the little matter of mass murder,” she concludes. “Thus, abortion clinic violence is more akin to the Tiananmen Square protests in Communist China than any liberal riot in America. Want to stop violence at abortion clinics? Repeal Roe and let Americans vote.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/06/top-10-shocking-things-in-ann-coulter%e2%80%99s-book-demonic-that-will-drive-liberals-crazy/#ixzz1Oi1Q3tXT

Arroyo_Doble
06-08-2011, 03:14 PM
4.) The GOP has always been the party supporting civil rights, not the Democratic Party.

...

2.) Coulter takes on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.


Damn funny.

linda22003
06-08-2011, 03:27 PM
Are her books funny? I've never read a word of one of them.

noonwitch
06-08-2011, 03:28 PM
She uses the french revolution to justify the killing of 4 college students? That's a stretch. So is justifying the murder of doctors by saying that liberals won't let abortion be decided by the voters, so those opposed have no other option than to commit acts of violence.


To paint all liberals as equal to the Weathermen is also wrong. But I think the one she will get most slammed for is her attack on MLK. People are going to be furious about it. It'll be interesting to see who gets worked up more-black people or white liberals who think they are speaking for black people. Still, though, that is probably the controversy that the media will fixate on.

Arroyo_Doble
06-08-2011, 03:31 PM
She uses the french revolution to justify the killing of 4 college students? That's a stretch. So is justifying the murder of doctors by saying that liberals won't let abortion be decided by the voters, so those opposed have no other option than to commit acts of violence.


To paint all liberals as equal to the Weathermen is also wrong. But I think the one she will get most slammed for is her attack on MLK. People are going to be furious about it. It'll be interesting to see who gets worked up more-black people or white liberals who think they are speaking for black people. Still, though, that is probably the controversy that the media will fixate on.

I doubt many will give a shit.

And that is pretty much her problem right now; too few give a shit what she has to say anymore.

pyackog
06-08-2011, 03:33 PM
I doubt many will give a shit.

And that is pretty much her problem right now; too few give a shit what she has to say anymore.

And the types of mental reaches she is attempting here is why. She at least used to occasionally make some sense around her invective. Now she is attempting only to piss people off for attention it seems like.

hai
06-08-2011, 03:50 PM
4.) The GOP has always been the party supporting civil rights, not the Democratic Party.

...

2.) Coulter takes on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.


Damn funny.

Well i believe there is a saying south is as a democrat,I was reading that back in 1862 that Democrats always came from the south.

Arroyo_Doble
06-08-2011, 03:53 PM
Well i believe there is a saying south is as a democrat,I was reading that back in 1862 that Democrats always came from the south.

They did. Up until the 1980's, the South was almost exclusively Democratic. I think Obama was the first Democrat elected that did not carry Arkansas. Rice said that the behaviour of Democrats and Republicans in her youth drove her to be a Republican.

But I am being redundant. Yes, the South was Democratic for well over a century.

megimoo
06-08-2011, 04:02 PM
Just posted because I wanted to see if Wilbur's head would explode. :D


Top 10 shocking things in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Demonic’ that will drive liberals crazy

Her latest book, “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America,” will start enraging liberals with its very title – which is par for the course for the author of such liberal-bashing classics as “Godless” and “Treason.”

The Daily Caller has put together the top 10 quotes and arguments from her latest tome that are most likely to make Chris Matthews’s head explode – and possibly even disturb some on the right.

10.) Democrats are anti-science


Reversing the Democratic mantra that Republicans are “anti-science,” Coulter says it is really the Democratic mob that abhors science and technological innovation.

“The Left’s abject terror of technological development is yet another mob attribute,” she writes.

Quoting Gustave Le Bon, whose theory on mobs is the main intellectual foundation of her book, Coulter writes, “Thus, according to Le Bon, if ‘democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”

But, Coulter argues, “Our liberals are even worse than Le Bon imagined. Democrats don’t merely want to block scientific progress, they want to stop scientific progress, they want to roll it back.”

She then cites, as examples, Al Gore’s call in his “global warming fantasy book Earth in the Balance” for the elimination of the internal combustion engine within 25 years, the Democrat’s 2007 bill to eliminate the incandescent light bulb by 2014, Obamacare, which she says will hamper medical innovation, and the Democrats’ incessant hectoring of the oil and pharmaceutical industries – industries, Coulter writes, that “are two of the most innovative.”

She goes on: “Indeed, the only way to get liberals interested in novel scientific research is to propose going after human embryos,” citing liberals love of embryonic stem cell research over adult stem cell research when the science on the latter is more promising according to her.

9.) Liberals are not a part of the American tradition

“The men behind the American Revolution – the militias, the Minutemen, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the framers of the Constitution – were the very opposite of the mob. Today we would call them ‘Republicans,’” she writes at one point in the book

“Liberals’ history is not this country’s history – theirs is the history of the mob,” she writes in another.

8.) Liberal social consciousness manifests itself in the killing of American soldiers

Though a joke, this one will still enrage:

“If the Weatherman had succeeded in transporting their bombs to the Fort Dix dance, instead of blowing themselves up, they would have murdered lots of U.S. serviceman and their dates. For liberals, that’s social consciousness,” she writes.

7.) Republican “Southern Strategy” was not racist

“The entire basis of the liberals’ ‘Southern Strategy’ myth is the sophisticated belief that anyone who votes Republican must be a racist,” Coulter writes.

“If Nixon had planned to appeal to white racists, speeding up desegregation was not an effective strategy. But he turned around and won an even bigger landslide in 1972, running against George McGovern and the party of acid, abortion, and amnesty,” she argues.

6.) The left (and crazy people) are responsible for all political violence in the United States

“Somewhat astoundingly, in the entire nation’s history, there’s never been a presidential assassination attempt by a right-winger. There have been more than a dozen by left-wingers,” she writes.

“Conservatives, we’re endlessly told, create ‘an atmosphere of hatred and fear.’ This is as opposed to liberals who just go around shooting elected officials.”

After spending an entire chapter – entitled “Imaginary Violence From the Right Vs. Actual Violence From The Left” – documenting her case, Coulter concludes,

“What’s confusing is that liberal historians keep telling us that those angry, contorted faces screaming at black people are ‘Southerners’ – probably someone like Phyllis Schlafly. Only when you realize they are all Democrats – usually liberal, progressive Democrats, in the mold of Wilson, Faubus, and Ervin – do the pictures make sense.

“It’s always liberals: Like Robespierre, they commit violence for the greater good.”

5.) Democrats’ schemes are similar to the schemes of history’s worst regimes

In a chapter detailing the 20th century’s most brutal regimes, from Stalin’s Soviet Union to Hitler’s Germany to Mao’s China to Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Coulter writes, “You will note the similarities in all these totalitarian plans to many of the Democrats’ schemes.”

4.) The GOP has always been the party supporting civil rights, not the Democratic Party

“Angry violent mobs are always Democratic: Code Pink, SDS, The Weathermen, Earth First!, anti-war protesters, and union protesters in Wisconsin,” Coulter writes.

“Like them, the Ku Klux Klan was, of course, another Democratic undertaking, originally formed to terrorize Republicans, but later switching to terrorize blacks. It was Democratic juries that acquitted Klansman after Klansman. It was Democratic politicians who supported segregation, Democratic governors who called out the National Guard to stop desegregation, Democratic commissioners of public safety who turned police dogs and water hoses on civil rights protesters.”

Also: “Democrats only came around on civil rights when blacks were voting in high enough numbers to make a difference at the ballot box – and then they claimed credit for everything their party had ferociously blocked since the Civil War.”

3.) Coulter stands up for the killings at Kent State

“On May 4, National Guard officers were trying to disperse thousands of violent protesters in the middle of the campus. According to the recent reporting of James Rosen, the guardsman were fired upon first, leading twenty-nine guardsman to shoot back at the protesters, killing four students in thirteen seconds,” Coulter writes.

“If Louis XVI had been that decisive, 600,000 Frenchmen might not have had to die. As his grandfather, Louis XIV, had said: When war is necessary, it is a ‘grave error to think that one can reach the same aims by weaker means.’ Though decried throughout the land – and in a Neil Young song! – the shooting at Kent State soon put an end to the student riots.”

This fits nicely with a major theme of Coulter’s book, which is encapsulated in its very last words.

“This nation’s heroes knew what Louis XVI did not: A mob cannot be calmly reasoned with: it can only be smashed,” Coulter writes. “When faced with a mob, civilized society’s motto should be: Overreact!”

2.) Coulter takes on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Martin Luther King Jr. was the heir to Rousseau. He used images in order to win publicity and goodwill for his cause, deploying children in the streets for a pointless, violent confrontation with a lame-duck lunatic: Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor,” she writes.

In attacking King’s legacy, Coulter uses the words of liberal icon Thurgood Marshall, who became the first black justice of the Supreme Court, to aid her in tarnishing King’s reputation. “Thurgood Marshall had always disdained King’s methods, calling him an ‘opportunist’ and ‘first rate rabble-rouser,’” Coulter writes. “Indeed, when asked about King’s suggestion that street protests could help advance desegregation, Marshall replied that school desegregation was men’s work and should not be entrusted to children. King, he said, was ‘a boy on a man’s errand.’”

Coulter concludes, “The civil rights movement had made mobs respectable, to the great misfortune of the nation. In no time, liberals began engaging in what I believe Gandhi called ‘active resistance’ every time they didn’t get their way through legitimate legal processes.”

In a later chapter, she says, “If Nixon had been elected in 1960, instead of Kennedy, we could have skipped the bloodshed of the civil rights marches and today we’d be celebrating Thurgood Marshall Day, rather than Martin Luther King Day.”

1.) Expressing understanding of anti-abortion violence

“But more important, abortion clinic violence should not be filed under ‘Political Violence’ at all. It should be filed under ‘Things Liberals Won’t Let Americans Vote On.’…When there is no legal process for pro-lifers to pursue to outlaw abortion – unlike every policy liberals violently protest – some pro-lifers will inevitably respond to lawlessness with lawlessness,” Coulter writes. “In the first few years after [Planned Parenthood v. Casey], about six more people were killed in attacks on abortion clinics. Most of the abortionists were shot or, depending upon your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle.”

“There were no more constitutional options left to fight judicial tyranny on the little matter of mass murder,” she concludes. “Thus, abortion clinic violence is more akin to the Tiananmen Square protests in Communist China than any liberal riot in America. Want to stop violence at abortion clinics? Repeal Roe and let Americans vote.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/06/top-10-shocking-things-in-ann-coulter%e2%80%99s-book-demonic-that-will-drive-liberals-crazy/#ixzz1Oi1Q3tXT
Case in point...Simply post a series of photos of aborted baby pieces laying on an abortion mills butcher table and watch the liberal pro choice baby killers all rise up in arms .

Gingersnap
06-08-2011, 04:02 PM
Not Lounge material, I'm afraid.

megimoo
06-08-2011, 04:20 PM
Not Lounge material, I'm afraid.Where would one put aborted baby posts ?

Odysseus
06-08-2011, 04:22 PM
4.) The GOP has always been the party supporting civil rights, not the Democratic Party.
...
2.) Coulter takes on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Damn funny.
I realize that this is your answer to anything that you cannot refute, but I am curious as to what you find funny about #4. As Coulter writes:


“Like them, the Ku Klux Klan was, of course, another Democratic undertaking, originally formed to terrorize Republicans, but later switching to terrorize blacks. It was Democratic juries that acquitted Klansman after Klansman. It was Democratic politicians who supported segregation, Democratic governors who called out the National Guard to stop desegregation, Democratic commissioners of public safety who turned police dogs and water hoses on civil rights protesters.”

Also: “Democrats only came around on civil rights when blacks were voting in high enough numbers to make a difference at the ballot box – and then they claimed credit for everything their party had ferociously blocked since the Civil War.”

Is there anything there that is false? Was it not Democrats who imposed and perpetuated segregation, Jim Crow, etc.? And not just conservative Democrats. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive (i.e., liberal) Democrat and he was the one who instituted segregation in the federal civil service and in Washington DC, and FDR refused to sign anti-lynching laws. JFK was, at best, ambivalent about civil rights (while Ike was the one who federalized the National Guard in Little Rock and sent the 101st Airborne in to enforce Brown Vs. Board of Education). And Nixon was the one who desegregated public schools, not just in the south, but nationwide. From PBS (yes, that's right, PBS):


In 1969, despite civil rights reforms like the landmark decision declaring that segregated schools where unconstitutional, the 1964 Civil Rights bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many African Americans lived without the full protection of the law, equal access to public facilities, or equal economic opportunity. Nixon viewed this situation as not only unfair to African Americans, but as a waste of valuable human resources which could help the nation grow.

Among the most pressing civil rights issues was desegregation of public schools. Nixon inherited a nation in which nearly 70% of the black children in the South attended all-black schools. He had supported civil rights both as a senator and as vice president under Eisenhower, but now, mindful of the Southern vote, he petitioned the courts on behalf of school districts seeking to delay busing. Meanwhile, he offered a practical New Federalist alternative -- locally controlled desegregation.

Starting in Mississippi and moving across the South, the Nixon administration set up biracial state committees to plan and implement school desegregation. The appeal to local control succeeded. By the end of 1970, with little of the anticipated violence and little fanfare, the committees had made significant progress -- only about 18% of black children in the South attended all-black schools.

In other words, Nixon's legacy on Civil Rights was superior to FDR's, JFK's Wilson's and certainly a number of Democrats who remained in office long after the 80's. Fritz Hollings, for example, was the Senator who, as governor of South Carolina, put the Confederate flag in the state flag, and don't get me started on Robert Byrd, D-KKK.

As for 2., I wasn't aware that Thurgood Marshall held King in such contempt. I have disagreed with Marshall on a whole bunch of issues, but I've always respected him. It's a disturbing piece of information.

wilbur
06-08-2011, 04:28 PM
Heh, Ann Coulter. And you wonder why anybody might insult your intelligence :)

megimoo
06-08-2011, 04:29 PM
I realize that this is your answer to anything that you cannot refute, but I am curious as to what you find funny about #4. As Coulter writes:


“Like them, the Ku Klux Klan was, of course, another Democratic undertaking, originally formed to terrorize Republicans, but later switching to terrorize blacks. It was Democratic juries that acquitted Klansman after Klansman. It was Democratic politicians who supported segregation, Democratic governors who called out the National Guard to stop desegregation, Democratic commissioners of public safety who turned police dogs and water hoses on civil rights protesters.”

Also: “Democrats only came around on civil rights when blacks were voting in high enough numbers to make a difference at the ballot box – and then they claimed credit for everything their party had ferociously blocked since the Civil War.”

Is there anything there that is false? Was it not Democrats who imposed and perpetuated segregation, Jim Crow, etc.? And not just conservative Democrats. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive (i.e., liberal) Democrat and he was the one who instituted segregation in the federal civil service and in Washington DC, and FDR refused to sign anti-lynching laws. JFK was, at best, ambivalent about civil rights (while Ike was the one who federalized the National Guard in Little Rock and sent the 101st Airborne in to enforce Brown Vs. Board of Education). And Nixon was the one who desegregated public schools, not just in the south, but nationwide. From PBS (yes, that's right, PBS):


In 1969, despite civil rights reforms like the landmark decision declaring that segregated schools where unconstitutional, the 1964 Civil Rights bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many African Americans lived without the full protection of the law, equal access to public facilities, or equal economic opportunity. Nixon viewed this situation as not only unfair to African Americans, but as a waste of valuable human resources which could help the nation grow.

Among the most pressing civil rights issues was desegregation of public schools. Nixon inherited a nation in which nearly 70% of the black children in the South attended all-black schools. He had supported civil rights both as a senator and as vice president under Eisenhower, but now, mindful of the Southern vote, he petitioned the courts on behalf of school districts seeking to delay busing. Meanwhile, he offered a practical New Federalist alternative -- locally controlled desegregation.

Starting in Mississippi and moving across the South, the Nixon administration set up biracial state committees to plan and implement school desegregation. The appeal to local control succeeded. By the end of 1970, with little of the anticipated violence and little fanfare, the committees had made significant progress -- only about 18% of black children in the South attended all-black schools.

In other words, Nixon's legacy on Civil Rights was superior to FDR's, JFK's Wilson's and certainly a number of Democrats who remained in office long after the 80's. Fritz Hollings, for example, was the Senator who, as governor of South Carolina, put the Confederate flag in the state flag, and don't get me started on Robert Byrd, D-KKK.

As for 2., I wasn't aware that Thurgood Marshall held King in such contempt. I have disagreed with Marshall on a whole bunch of issues, but I've always respected him. It's a disturbing piece of information.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/grigsby.asp

noonwitch
06-08-2011, 04:35 PM
Where would one put aborted baby posts ?


On a billboard across from an elementary school playground-where else?

NJCardFan
06-08-2011, 04:35 PM
4.) The GOP has always been the party supporting civil rights, not the Democratic Party.

...

2.) Coulter takes on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.


Damn funny.

This is basically the reason why I stopped reading her books. She stopped trying to use facts and instead has degenerated into sensationalism. The sad thing is, in point #4, she is correct. It was a Republican who eventually freed the slaves. It was the Republican Party that tried to advance the freed slaves into society. It was the Republican Party that desegregated the schools in the 1950's and it was the Republican Party who's votes helped pass the Civil Rights Bill. If Coulter would simply look to the facts and present those, she'd appear more credible but writing a hypocritical book* makes her look like an ass.


*-By hypocritical I mean she talks about left wing violence while explaining away right wing violence. Face it, there are knuckleheads on both sides.

fettpett
06-08-2011, 04:59 PM
One thing that I have an issue is with her contention that there wasn't any racism with the "Southern Strategy" While Nixion might not have seen it that way but Hoover did, He kicked out a lot of blacks from high positions in the GOP, and was the first to use the strategy. he was called on it by Coolidge who had started integration of the military (which Wilson undid)

Ranger Rick
06-08-2011, 06:14 PM
*-By hypocritical I mean she talks about left wing violence while explaining away right wing violence. Face it, there are knuckleheads on both sides.

I have been having a hard time finding " right wing violence". Would you please share some examples?

Odysseus
06-08-2011, 06:19 PM
I have been having a hard time finding " right wing violence". Would you please share some examples?

Defending yourself from a violent leftist makes you a violent right winger. :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
06-08-2011, 06:23 PM
http://www.oklahomacitybombing.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-1.jpg

NJCardFan
06-08-2011, 07:27 PM
I have been having a hard time finding " right wing violence". Would you please share some examples?

Abortion clinic bombings and shootings aren't exactly committed by Code Pink. And Timothy McVeigh wasn't exactly a card carrying member of PETA. That said, comparing the actions of the left to actions of the right is no comparison but to imply that right wingers are all passive peace loving individuals is an irresponsible thought process. What should differentiate us from the left is that when someone from "our" side commits an act of violence, we condemn the individual, not the group. Eric Rudolph is an individual responsible for his own actions, not conservative ideals. Also, no matter how you slice it, firing into a crowd of protesting college students isn't something to be proud of, justified or not.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-08-2011, 07:55 PM
4.) The GOP has always been the party supporting civil rights, not the Democratic Party.

...

2.) Coulter takes on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.


Damn funny.



The GOP always HAS been the party of civil rights. It was FOUNDED on the notion. It CONTINUED the cry and until LBJ ( a vile racist) decided that for the sake of political gain, he'd "have them ******s voting Democratic for 100 years" by introducing the 1964 Civil rights act.

Of course BEFORE that - he was the LEADING Senator that OPPOSED Eisenhower's Civil rights bill that was nearly identical. He got nearly all of the teeth taken out of it.

noonwitch
06-09-2011, 09:45 AM
Abortion clinic bombings and shootings aren't exactly committed by Code Pink. And Timothy McVeigh wasn't exactly a card carrying member of PETA. That said, comparing the actions of the left to actions of the right is no comparison but to imply that right wingers are all passive peace loving individuals is an irresponsible thought process. What should differentiate us from the left is that when someone from "our" side commits an act of violence, we condemn the individual, not the group. Eric Rudolph is an individual responsible for his own actions, not conservative ideals. Also, no matter how you slice it, firing into a crowd of protesting college students isn't something to be proud of, justified or not.


One of the many reasons I stopped posting at DU is their justification of groups like Code Pink and their sanctification of Cindy Sheehan, whom I see as a woman whose grief turned into a genuine mental health issue that they were feeding off of in a way.


As far as Kent State is concerned, I was a little kid when that happened. From all accounts I've read, it was a very tragic mistake, one in which the NG personnel were somehow misled into firing at the protestors. It's not Nixon's fault, as he isn't the one who had the authority to call the Ohio National Guard to a college campus. But most people today accept the way CSNY put it in their song as the official story.

Campus police learned from that how to use tear gas. It's probably prevented numerous tragedies from happening during drunken riots in East Lansing, if nowhere else.:D

Calypso Jones
06-09-2011, 11:35 AM
http://www.oklahomacitybombing.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-1.jpg

do you know anything about the fate of that babe?

http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_Bombing

Arroyo_Doble
06-09-2011, 11:43 AM
do you know anything about the fate of that babe?



http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2001/222/almonbaylee22.jpg

txradioguy
06-09-2011, 12:08 PM
Can't wait to get it and add it to my Library.

Calypso Jones
06-09-2011, 12:16 PM
I love Ann Couilter's writing. She's funny, she does LOADS of preparation. I have Demonic and can't wait to get started on it.

AmPat
06-09-2011, 12:18 PM
Where would one put aborted baby posts ?

I recommend Stupid Liberal Tricks or End Of the World.

Ranger Rick
06-09-2011, 03:05 PM
Abortion clinic bombings and shootings aren't exactly committed by Code Pink. And Timothy McVeigh wasn't exactly a card carrying member of PETA. That said, comparing the actions of the left to actions of the right is no comparison but to imply that right wingers are all passive peace loving individuals is an irresponsible thought process. What should differentiate us from the left is that when someone from "our" side commits an act of violence, we condemn the individual, not the group. Eric Rudolph is an individual responsible for his own actions, not conservative ideals. Also, no matter how you slice it, firing into a crowd of protesting college students isn't something to be proud of, justified or not.

Yes, I gues we can call Abortion clinic bombings and shootings " right wing violence".

Timothy McVeigh was a screaming moonbat liberal, and bombed for liberal causes.

wilbur
06-09-2011, 03:14 PM
Tim McVeigh was definitely not liberal... or anything even close to resembling the modern day conservative caricature of liberals...

... its got to be one of the most egregious attempts at historical revisionism by Ann Coulter. Blatant. It really does out her as a nutjob, almost as delusional as McVeigh, though.

Tim McVeigh was about guns and God and fighting the government.

NJCardFan
06-09-2011, 03:26 PM
Yes, I gues we can call Abortion clinic bombings and shootings " right wing violence".

Timothy McVeigh was a screaming moonbat liberal, and bombed for liberal causes.

Tomothy McVeigh was a registered Republican. And he bombed not for liberal causes but in retaliation against the Clinton Justice Department for Waco and Ruby Ridge(which happened under Bush 41). Please sir, please get your facts straight next time.

KhrushchevsShoe
06-09-2011, 03:30 PM
Timothy McVeigh was a screaming moonbat liberal, and bombed for liberal causes.

Just curious, where did you hear this from?

Odysseus
06-09-2011, 05:19 PM
Tim McVeigh was definitely not liberal... or anything even close to resembling the modern day conservative caricature of liberals...
And you know this because you are a caricature of liberals and he was never at the meetings?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-09-2011, 05:41 PM
The GOP always HAS been the party of civil rights. It was FOUNDED on the notion. It CONTINUED the cry and until LBJ ( a vile racist) decided that for the sake of political gain, he'd "have them ******s voting Democratic for 100 years" by introducing the 1964 Civil rights act.

Of course BEFORE that - he was the LEADING Senator that OPPOSED Eisenhower's Civil rights bill that was nearly identical. He got nearly all of the teeth taken out of it.

The reason he "took the teeth out of" the 1957 bill was so that it could pass at all, to make it politically acceptable so that members of his own party would vote for it. A half hearted bill is better than no bill.

And funny, that "have them voting for 100 years" statement was never recorded anywhere, even though LBJ had an obsession with taping himself for reasons of posterity as well as to help with his memory, installing taping mechanisms everywhere including in the Oval Office, his personal White House phone line, the Air Force One phone line, supposedly even one under his bed as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6E-NHqsEsE

fettpett
06-09-2011, 08:08 PM
The reason he "took the teeth out of" the 1957 bill was so that it could pass at all, to make it politically acceptable so that members of his own party would vote for it. A half hearted bill is better than no bill.

And funny, that "have them voting for 100 years" statement was never recorded anywhere, even though LBJ had an obsession with taping himself for reasons of posterity as well as to help with his memory, installing taping mechanisms everywhere including in the Oval Office, his personal White House phone line, the Air Force One phone line, supposedly even one under his bed as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6E-NHqsEsE

dude, The ONLY reason he passed the '67 Civil rights bill was for political reasons. He was stuck in a quagmire in Vietnam, had riots and marches across the country that were hurting him.

this is the quote you are referring too:
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-09-2011, 08:40 PM
dude, The ONLY reason he passed the '67 Civil rights bill was for political reasons. He was stuck in a quagmire in Vietnam, had riots and marches across the country that were hurting him.

this is the quote you are referring too:
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

What about the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Act? The tape I showed you where he's pushing hard for a civil rights bill with teeth is from DECEMBER 1963--Just a month after assuming office and before Vietnam was a nationally divisive issue. We didn't commit ground troops until '65 to Vietnam if I recall correctly and Johnson was riding an incredibly large wave of popularity in 1964. Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in July '64 before the election, could've harmed him politically. There were still plenty of racists around in 1964. Fighting to get JFK's controversial Civil Rights Bill, which had failed to pass the previous year (as JFK was nowhere near as skilled as LBJ was politically0, beefed up and passed, was a bold move right before an election. Supposedly he commented upon signing it that "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation."

As to that speech? Playing to the crowd. You do realize that LBJ was probably the most effective politician in terms of getting what he wanted passed in our nation's history, right? That'd he plan years ahead of time and read politics and politicians like a book? The man knew how to play the right song to the right audience. Reading the biographies I have of him shows me a man who was actually a very racially tolerant man despite growing up in early 20th century Texas and having a rough hewn son of a bitch for a father.

Wei Wu Wei
06-09-2011, 09:18 PM
Ann Coulter has always been nothing more than a right-wing shock-jock. She says things to try to get people riled up, it's not that complicated. Most people don't really take her very seriously, her shtick is running low on fuel.

I read How to Talk to a Liberal and Godless. Meh, they were a little funny at the time but nothing to lose any sleep over.

BadCat
06-09-2011, 09:34 PM
I love Ann.

Just because she gets all you liberal faggots panties in a bunch.

Wei Wu Wei
06-09-2011, 09:40 PM
please stop it Ann it hurts so bad. your words....they sting...:(

BadCat
06-09-2011, 09:45 PM
please stop it Ann it hurts so bad. your words....they sting...:(

And the fact that we have every freakin' commie on this board here bashing her, proves that point.

Wei Wu Wei
06-09-2011, 09:57 PM
so insulting or 'bashing' someone is evidence that they make your panties wad up?

Can't argue with that. My rage is bottomless.

BadCat
06-09-2011, 10:00 PM
so insulting or 'bashing' someone is evidence that they make your panties wad up?

Can't argue with that. My rage is bottomless.

You're too much of a vagina to have "rage".

Like all liberals, you just whine and whimper a lot