SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

Ann Coulter wants to execute you
by mom
Monday Feb 18th, 2002 6:51 PM
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals", says Ann Coulter, vicious spokesperson for some real big-brains.
Subject:Liberals, report to re-education


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02.14.2002

By JAY BOOKMAN
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Columnist

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to
physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that
they can be killed too," pundit Ann Coulter told this
month's meeting of the Conservative Political Action
Conference. "Otherwise they will turn out to be outright
traitors."

Appearing on Fox News a few days later, Coulter
acknowledged the statement and bragged that it had been a
"huge hit with the audience," an estimated 3,500 who turned
out for the three-day conference in Arlington, Va., that
bills itself as the nation's "premier annual gathering of
conservatives." In addition to Coulter, attendees also
heard luminaries such as Lynne Cheney, William Bennett and
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

Now, I have to admit that the Coulter statements -- and the
reception they apparently received from a mainstream
conservative audience -- really shocked me. Until now, I
had operated under the delusion that we liberals had
something to add to the great debate that helps guide this
country. I had no idea that only the fear of execution was
keeping me in line.

I'll even admit that at first, I thought Coulter must be
wrong. I couldn't see how there were still enough liberals
around to threaten national security. Then I remembered
that more than half the voters in the 2000 election had
voted for Al Gore, so I guess we do have a major problem.

So, being a good liberal, I propose a new government
program to address the problem. We could call it Liberal
Intimidation And Re-education. All those Americans who
voted for Gore, and yet still think of themselves as
patriotic, would be asked to report immediately to LIAR
camps.

Of course -- and give me credit here, you can see I'm
really trying to reform -- the camps would be privately run
"charter camps." Some would also be faith-based programs,
designed specifically to re-educate liberal Christians who
have deluded themselves into believing that Jesus meant
what he said about turning the other cheek, about not
judging lest you be judged, about loving your neighbor and
the dangers of hoarding wealth.

In the camps we would be forced to read nothing but the
Wall Street Journal editorial page and watch Fox News 24
hours a day. Every time an image of Bill Clinton showed up
on our TV screens, we would get a jolt of electricity, so
that in time we too would cringe whenever we saw the man,
just as real Americans do. (An image of Hillary would of
course draw double the voltage.)

I'm actually looking forward to the experience, because I
might get insight into some of the inner mysteries of
conservative thought: Why is John Walker Lindh the
embodiment of all America-hating liberalism, while Timothy
McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was merely a deluded
individual with no deeper meaning about conservatism? Why
must welfare mothers be forced out of the home and into the
work force, while middle-class mothers have to be forced
out of the work force and back to the kitchen? How do gay
Americans pose a threat to heterosexual families, and where
is the secure, undisclosed location where they're keeping
Tom DeLay's brain?

I even have the perfect man to serve as camp commandant:
John Ashcroft. It was Ashcroft, you'll remember, who told
Congress that anyone who criticized his decisions was
aiding terrorists. Clearly this is a man who already
recognizes the danger; he deserves first crack at fixing
it.

And of course, just before graduation, as a test of our
newfound loyalty, we former liberals would be required to
volunteer to get lobotomies. That way, we would all emerge
from the LIAR program exactly as smart as Ann Coulter.

If not quite as vicious.

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column
appears Thursdays.
by Hard nut
Monday Feb 18th, 2002 9:21 PM
and I'll fucking do you.
by Norton
Monday Feb 18th, 2002 11:50 PM
The fascists are getting bolder. It won't be long now ...those who are not cowed have reservations made in their names at the concentration camps. There is a bloodbath in store for those who resist.
by Office of Homeland Security
Tuesday Feb 19th, 2002 9:42 AM
Ridge here. Now, now, now--I know Ann can be a little hot headed at times, but, frankly, I just LOVE it when she talks like that. Gives me goose bumps all over. And honestly, there's nothing worse than liberals whining about the "Bill of Rights" (whatever that is). What do they think this is, a democracy? I thought the 2000 election set them straight.

But the liberals can rest easy. Despite Ann's excellent suggestion, we have better things to do than lock them up. After all, they're always snitching on people (and sometimes on each other) so it's better to have them on the streets making a mess of things for the enemy. And besides, we need the space in the re-education camps for the Muslims and for all you anarchists. There's a war on, and we have to prioritize!
by Bill
Tuesday Feb 19th, 2002 11:22 AM
If you look at the final results of the 2000 election, Gore received less than half the votes or did you not include Nader's 2.8 million?
by fred
Tuesday Feb 19th, 2002 11:47 AM
"The four biggest vote getters were Democratic candidate Al Gore with 50.16 million votes, Republican candidate George W. Bush with 49.82 million votes, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader with 2.78 million votes, and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan with 0.45 million votes. If Americans had chosen their President based on who got the most votes nationwide, Al Gore would have been elected. " Eric Schulman


by GOP
Tuesday Feb 19th, 2002 2:22 PM


Yeah: but braking it down on a state by state basis, Bush got 60% of the states (30 total)...

Checks and balances: While deciding national elections on nationwide total votes may sound great if you're from a big state like California, imagine what would happen to the smaller states like Vermont or New Hampshire...

They'd be completely disinfranchised in national elections, because they'd be swamped out of the picture, the executive branch would be decided solely by the votes of 4 states: New York, Florida, Texas, and California...

-A party could control the Whithouse simply by locking in and focusing on a handful of cities- New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Houston, Buffalo, Tampa- while flushing the rest of the country down the toilet...


While this may not sound so bad to Californians, just sit down and remember that Nixon and Reagen are from here, and maybe it wouldn't have been such a bad idea if the voters in Delaware exercised their ability to keep them out of the Whitehouse...





by Fred
Tuesday Feb 19th, 2002 3:45 PM
The Electoral College violates the principle of "one man, one vote." If most blacks or Catholics lived in, say, California, they would be effectively disenfranchised by the College. As it is, the Electoral College discounts the votes of the urban poor living in highly populated states.

The statement that Bush got 60% of the states is idiotic. Who cares? The fourteen people who live in North Dakota should not have the disproportionate electoral weight the College assigns them.

The Electoral College was essentially designed to preserve slavery by assuring that it could never be overthrown by a popular, especially a non-Southern, majority. It accomplished this so effectively that a war was necessary to liberate the slaves.

That's not a legacy I'd be comfortable with even if I was a Republican.
by Execute This, Bitch
Tuesday Feb 19th, 2002 7:04 PM
.
by independent voter
Tuesday Feb 19th, 2002 9:24 PM
Some of you may wish to consider the following argument made in favor of the EC.

---
Earl Ofari Hutchinson writes about the electoral college. Here's an excerpt:


"The clamor by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jesse Jackson and others, mostly Democrats, to dump the Electoral College is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. In 1992 Rodham Clinton and Jackson did not shout that the Electoral College is unfair and thwarted the popular will by permitting the candidate who wins a minority of the popular vote to occupy the White House. That year, Rodham Clinton's husband, Bill, won the presidency with a minority of the vote. In the same election, one out of five voters backed Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot. Yet he did not get a single electoral vote. Rodham Clinton and Jackson did not call that unfair. They inflame black and Latino voters by pounding on the point that the Electoral College gives too much power to mostly white, conservative farmers, ranchers, and live stock herders in sparsely populated states and too little power to those in racially diverse, densely populated states. But scrapping the Electoral College because Rodham Clinton and Jackson are piqued over a potential Bush presidency will badly hurt blacks and Latinos. Gore's edge over Bush in the popular vote was only marginally greater than Kennedy's over Nixon in the still much disputed 1960 election. And Bush racked up a 30 to 19 margin over him in the number of states won. Still, the massive support Gore got from blacks and Latinos in California, New York, New Jersey Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia enabled him, without--at least for the moment--Florida, to top Bush in the electoral column."

---
The entire article is available at the following URL:

http://www.afrocentricnews.com/html/ofari_electorial_college.html
by PR
Wednesday Feb 20th, 2002 9:33 PM
Ann Coulter, Queen of the Damned

"All she wants is hell on earth"


Queen of the Damned, Coulter
by Howard Klein
( duckman51 [at] aol.com ) Thursday Feb 21st, 2002 10:02 PM
Sir,

Thank you for bringing this abhorent statement to light. I am a little concerned that you would poke fun at those lunitics statements though. People laughed at that little house painter in 1930 and look what he wrought all over the earth.
People made fun at a certain junior Senator from Wisconsin and looked how many Americans he destroyed.
No, I don't believe that what those fasists said was in the least bit funny. They are very dangerous people that must be taken very very seriously. If we have not learned anything from history it is to never never forget who makes history.

Howard Klein
by D_Toad
Thursday Feb 21st, 2002 10:52 PM
Most texans know the dirty little secret.... Tom ain't got one....
:D
by Fred
Friday Feb 22nd, 2002 6:58 AM
If you read the entire article, you'll see that it actually proves my point. This clown, writing just after Election Day, argues that the close election forced both candidates to address black/Latino concerns and that the power of minority voters would compel even Bush to moderate his policies. Well, Bush won, and he's been pursuing a hard right agenda, naming segregationist judges and promoting regressive tax cuts. So there's your moderation for you, nimrod. The black officials he's appointed are just window dressing, and a clear violation of his own stated opposition to affirmative action.

Furthermore, the argument that the Electoral College is ok because Clinton won with a minority of the '92 vote is truly moronic. The principle is that the candidate with the MOST VOTES OVERALL should win the election. It's called democracy. Duh!
by David Speakman
Friday Feb 22nd, 2002 10:16 AM
Under what definition of "liberal" does John Walker fall?

It is plainly obvious John Walker Lindh is a religious conservative fundamentalist - he's just not Christian.

Maybe in Coulter's warped and ignorant mind, no non-Christian could possibly be a conservative.

Ann Coulter needs to stop embarassing herself and learn the meanings of words in the Engligh language and educate herself on political theory.

by Kevin
( kevinjayden1 [at] attbi.commie ) Saturday Feb 23rd, 2002 6:06 AM
The bloodyheadedness of this formerly unknown and still irrelevant woman proves, to the relief of the British monarchy, that there is, at last, a successor to Prince Charles' throne as the World's Biggest Tampon.
by Kevin
( kevinhayden1 [at] attbi.commie ) Saturday Feb 23rd, 2002 6:14 AM
Nah, Ann, if ya really want to physically intimidate us, take yer clothes off.
by Bob
Friday May 17th, 2002 12:59 PM
What do you mean by "braking it down?" Where I went to school and every book I have seen on the usage of words, braking refers to a stopping or slowing action. I am unsure how you are using that clause to slow or stop "on a state by state basis?"??? What does that mean?

Also who is Reagen? I think by Nixon you are referring to Richard M. Nixon but are you referring to Ronald Reagan?

And the last time I looked at the Constitution it made no mention of the nationwide presidential election being decided by the highest percentage of states won. Which makes that a specious argument with no basis. Why not argue that whoever wins the vote based on the four least populous states should win the election so that no pretense about the "will of the people" enters into it at all?
by William Tucker
Tuesday Aug 6th, 2002 11:36 PM
The point is to intimidate liberal traitors not just liberals, unless of coarse your saying being a liberal automaticaly makes you a traitor. Hmm you might have a point there.
by Larry
( lhenderson [at] knology.net ) Monday Aug 12th, 2002 5:56 PM

"States" don't vote moron! People do!!
I'm sick of hearing right wankers whine about how if we elected our presidents by direct popular vote that wouldn't be fair to the tiny, underpopulated, state of Idahoe or Montana, etc. I DON"T CARE BECAUSE IT IS PEOPLE WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE!! NOT STATES!! Gore won by all that is right and just and you right wankers know it!! More Americans wanted Gore!
Minority rule is called dictatorship, oligarchy, etc., and it is WRONG!! Morally, Ethically, WRONG!! - LHenderson
by Eric
Wednesday Aug 14th, 2002 6:29 AM
And I'm tired of stupid ass Europeans and Australians chirping up like they have a say in American politics and trying to insult people by calling them "Wanker" for Christs sake??

What the hell exactly is a wanker anyway? What dumbass came up with that term? If you are in America, get the fuck out and go back to Europe so you can piss and moan about political systems that REALLY are screwed up, not one that works.

You stupid wanker.
by X2
Wednesday Aug 14th, 2002 3:38 PM
who exactly does it work for? People in America's enormous ghettoes? The world's largest prisoner population?
by jlsb
Thursday Mar 27th, 2003 3:08 AM
This is the full statement:

“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

Why are Americans covering for fascist apologists?

Do they realize they are the footsoldiers for reactionaries who would rolel back all post-Enlightenment gains, including this Grand Republic?

Q: What did the Catholic peasants in the Vendee get out of inadvertantly supporting noblesse emigrees and Leo II?

A: Sunk on barges in the middle of the Seine.

But seriously, don't forget how easily the Chilean middle class came over to Pinochet and rounded up the "leftists," e.g. anyone who didn't wanna privatize markets or live like a slave.
by John M. Burt
( john_m_burt [at] hotmail.com ) Thursday Jun 12th, 2003 8:36 AM
John Walker Lindh converted to an ancient religion with very strict rules about dress, sex, drugs, &c. He joined a faith-based organization devoted to sending the world back by hundreds of years, undoing all of modern society.

This makes him a liberal?
by Brian
Thursday Jun 19th, 2003 11:58 AM
What the hell is going on over there? You've all gone mad!!! Talking about killing people and everything because of their beliefs or view of the world.

When I left America to study in Europe, I left being proud of our great country. Now I feel ashamed at what people have been doing with its name.

America was founded as a place of freedom and tolerance. Tolerance doesn't mean that you have to agree or like each other, but you do have to allow each other to think the way he or she wishes.

My grandparents remember with sadness how McCarthy and his witch hunts spread across the country. Neighbors who had grudges called each other "communist" and handed information over to police. People lived in fear like in Stalin's Soviet Union.

What shocks me even more is that the so-called conservatives are backing a stronger and more powerful government, and the so-called liberals are against big government.

The terrorists already won! We're now going for each other's throats.

by Larry Henderson
( lhenderson [at] knology.net ) Sunday Sep 21st, 2003 11:24 AM

This AMERICAN DOES use the term "wanker" -smegma breath!! I am NOT a European or an Aussie.
I am a life long, born and raised American!
So go "FURK" your inbred conservative "arse!" I could care less whether or not you like my slang!- LH
by Bubba
Tuesday Oct 7th, 2003 9:13 AM
It's odd how an inflammatory statement by a conservative draws so much vitriol from the left.
But let Alec Baldwin scream on national TV that conservatives should be stoned to death, and their families too, and he's cheered on!
In reality, neither statement was spoken in complete seriousness.
All this venom directed at one woman? She must have made quite an impression!
The Constitution is NOT the only body of law in the US. It seems our founders anticipated this. As liberals and leftists, I am surprised you have a problem with that concept. If you want to rail against extra-Constitutional regulation, I think those are traits of either conservatives or libertarians by today's standards. Liberals and leftists in the 21st Century are pushing for MORE regulation, not less. At least as long as such regulation is directed toward conservatives and their causes.
Hmmmm, seems a little disingenuous, don't you think?
Did this really happen, or is it yet another straw man?
by Scottie
Tuesday Oct 7th, 2003 12:47 PM
Anne makes atilla the hun look like a bleeding heart liberal.
by Bubba
Thursday Oct 9th, 2003 6:22 AM
During the Clinton Impeachment hearings, he was referring to Henry Hyde and his family.
But he was only partly serious.................
by Jay Brookman
( Mateo1970 [at] yahoo.com ) Friday Jan 30th, 2004 9:50 PM
This satire/editorial was far less entertaining than Ann coulter