Rating: 
Summary: Evil! Conservative Propaganda... Plain and simple.
Review: I recently bought this book at a used bookstore. I sat down and read about half way through when I sensed a strange dark undercurrent of evil, it lifted off the pages like smoke and burned my eyes and sent my mind reeling in pain until darkness descended mercifully on me and released me from my agony. I must have been out for ten minutes or longer, when I gradually became conscious and the clouds in my mind cleared, suddenly to my shock and horror! I was a republican aaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!...she wishes!, but I don't think so. This book is written by the now infamous fame hungry Queen of Bile: Ann Coulter(Bush's righthand demon) the most insane hate filled woman in America as anyone with an IQ above 100 and common sense will attest to. Hey it's a free country aint it, if Ann wants to write angry hate filled books it's her right, after all she's one of the have and havemores she so diligently defends. Read at your own risk, but remember! to come back to reality afterward.
Rating:
Summary: Ann Coulter: Nutcase
Review: Yes, Al Franken is right. Coulter is a nutcase. Here's one example from her book to prove it. After Walter Cronkite heard Jerry Falwell say that gays, lesbians, and pro-choice Americans were partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Cronkite criticized Falwell for the remark. Without properly contexualizing Cronkite's remarks, Coulter called him a 'pious leftwing blowhard' and said Cronkite is proof that the liberal media hates Christians. If that's your idea of a fair analysis of the "liberal media," go ahead and buy this book. If you want to read something that's worth your while, find a different book.
Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the choir
Review: More garbage from another garbage pundit. Al Franken, Michael Savage, Jim Hightower, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Hillary Clinton, Bill O'Reilly.... all wannabe politicians pandering to those who follow their agenda. Books like "Treason" do NOTHING to stir reasoned, intelligent debate. Rather, they set agendas based on historical facts (that are sometimes bent or changed to support their views), and those who read them already agree with the author. So what's the point?Over the past year I've watched as conservative and liberal morons scream and spit at each other, wagging their fingers about the latest "facts and figures" from their favorite political authors. Usually, neither of them have read each others' book in question, so the argument consists mostly of gibberish with no valuable conclusion of any sort. I say these sorts of books have no redeeming social value, and I mean that because only people that already agree with the authors read them. Occasionally, a wary person who opposes the author's beliefs will pick it up and thumb through it, but not for the purpose of learning or opening creative debate. All they really want to do is find some tidbit or poorly constructed sentence to ridicule. Basically, the books just preach to the choir and then encourage the choir to fight with each other. All this political trash that sits on the bestsellers shelves at Borders and Barnes & Noble is not important information. They are each merely disgusting pieces of agit-prop fueled by individual agendas of the authors, not by ideals of compassion and cultural interest of our whole society. Despite how well these books sold over 2003, I noticed that they were all conspicuously absent from individual "best of" lists at the end of the year. I can't say I'm surprised. You'll never see a single one of these books with a cracked spine on the shelves of your favorite used bookstore. Trash, pure and simple. Avoid these books at all cost and think for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: Long Live Quean Ann . . . Queen Ann style
Review: A great read. It makes me want to befriend all of the ego-fornicating lawyers from Connecticut to Texas. Her insights and wisdom are invaluable for the "eighty percent, or whatever it is" (Chomsky), that are without the wherewithal and gumption to assess for themselves critically, and with a healthy open mind, actual fact verses fiction and understanding the function of persuasive agenda. It says what a so-called "conservative" WANTS to hear, no matter how distorted, or invented, the reality. All of coulters books, in hard cover if possible, should be a treasured collection for any library, including this book. Like your bible, this book should be purchased new, and read in a literal sense, together with the priesthood of the believer, that will allow translation into tidy accommodations.
Rating:
Summary: I love you, Ann Coulter
Review: You're my hero! Please keep the books coming!
Rating:
Summary: What a piece of s$#t
Review: Wow. What a total waste of money and time. First of all, I actually saw her on tv once, after having read Slander, and it all makes sense now. Ann Colter is a mental case, a nut, a sociopath, psychopath, and out and out lonely angry bitter single mental patient who has escaped. I highly recommend some serious medication along with electro shock therapy for her. And to her readers: How can you just sit there and allow her to disrespect you that way. It's obvious she has no moral sense of respect, or descency for her readers. She views them as unenlightened, uninformed and obviously brain dead. I showed this book to my dog. He got very ill. I showed this book to me toilet, it doesn't work anymore. I showed this book to the devil, he liked it, I showed this book to... well I showed this book to quite a few people, and they all were left with the impression, there is something seriously wrong with Ann Coulter. You may want to consider using this book as toilet paper. That is if you don't respect your own rear end. Enjoy life, avoid Ann Coulter.
Rating:
Summary: BAD LIBERALS!...BAM!,POW!,PLOINK!...Take That!
Review: Makes excellent toilet paper, Scathing Right wing venom from the fame hungry Queen of Propaganda Ann Coulter! The woman that would have made Hitler proud and probably held a high position in the Death's head unit of the Nazi party, if she had been born back then. Unfortunately for liberals she's in the present, so the majority of Americans have to deal with her bizarre incondite diatribe and weird belief system...frequently, those of us with cable that is. Ann Coulter lives in her own little world, she's busy bashing Liberals (like a second rate Sean Hannity) in one paragraph, then rewriting history(like a poor man's Limbaugh) in the other, she puts her own spin on reality, her books are unintentionally funny and very well written(if a bit surreal), as long as you can separate fact from fiction. Combine this book with her other book "Treason" add a little "Mein Kamf"(however you spell it) and just a touch of "The Turner Diaries" And what do you have?.....How the hell should I know!, it'll probably be her next bestseller. You know sometimes I actually think she's a little touched, but strangely I find her perversely fascinating and entertaining. I know what you're thinking, but I'm not a Democrat. For Mental Pygmies who constantly need to be reminded they're conservative, others with a higher intellect need not apply.
Rating:
Summary: ...from a republican
Review: Probably one of the sloppiest and most unintelligent books I have ever read...if you're looking for a laugh (not with her but at her), then pick this one up. This book was enough to make me ashamed of my own party.
Rating:
Summary: To the unnamed New York reader...
Review: Forward: Sorry for the delay in my reply. Amazon.com hasn't posted my last refutation to your rebuttal so I submitted it again. I was amused by your critique of my critique, but it really falls short. First, Delay. You promised the quote in full, but didn't give it. Here it is (from the hardcover edition): "For his evident belief in a Higher Being, Delay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. ("History teaches us that when religion is injected into politics - the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo - disaster follows.")." This is in fact a direct reference to the New York times commenting on DeLay's religiosity, but again, it was about Gore (it can also be inferred to being about Bush). And again, it wasn't a statement about religious belief, but the desire to inject it into politics, a big difference (BTW, I'm pretty sure that Dowd also believes in God). According to you, "She complains that Delay, not just Delay, but anyone else who holds his philosophies, is compared to "savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times... The quote about religion is about Al Gore, and Delay and Bush, and Dowd directs the quote to everyone and anyone who mixes politics and religion. And nowhere does Ann claim that quote was about Delay. " However, when you read what Ann wrote, she did directly say that Delay was compared to the murders and genocidal lunatics. I guess you're the one who didn't read it. Moving on, you responded to my two cents on Ann Coulter's lack of calendar reading. Here is what Ann Coulter said in Slander (Emphasis mine): "The bipartisan love fest lasted PRECISELY THREE WEEKS. That was ALL THE NEW YORK TIMES could endure. Impatient with the national mood of patriotism, liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush- or "Half a Commander in Chief," as he was called in the headline of a lead New York Times editorial on November 5, 2001. FROM THAT MOMENT ON, the left's primary contribution was to complain." Either she is intentionally making her readers think that the article was "precisely three weeks after", or she's simply an incompetent writer. She explicitly said that three weeks was all that the New York Times could endure, but her supporting article came eight weeks after. If your mind still is not made up, read the last sentence of that paragraph, where she said "From THAT MOMENT ON.." yadda, yadda, yadda. Since the article came eight weeks after, her claim that the NY Times could only handle three weeks is directly contradicted by her own words. You say, "You believe that she must quote from an Oct 2 article, rather than use an article from a later date that better illustrates her point. Please indicate why she must satisfy you rather than using the more illustrative example. Also, the attacks did not necessarily come from the Times. That was just the example that she used." This however, avoids what Coulter said. She should cite an early October article because she says "three weeks" "was all that the New York Times could endure". She provides no other documentation. By the way, you can read the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/05/opinion/05MON1.html?ex=1073192400&en=b4e368dc82bede90&ei=5070 . It is not a vicious, divisive piece as Coulter would have you believe. You also said something strange which caught my attention. You said that Ann was too lenient in her charge because Andy Rooney criticized Bush before Ann's "three weeks". That however, is a very weak point considering that Rooney is only one person and doesn't speak for the left (in fact, polls showed the vast majority of Democrats supporting Bush months after 9/11, you can probably check at pollingreport.com) It's even weaker since that almost immediately after the attacks, many conservatives began attacking liberals. Whether it was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming the attacks on gays, atheists, Michelle Malkin and others on Hilary Clinton, Bob Dornan on Clinton (The morning after the attacks, he remarked on Fox News that it's good that we have Bush as president rather than the "Crying Clintons"), or Coulter herself on Muslims, FDR, etc. Finally, the Monticello incident which Coulter misrepresents. You concede that she got the coverage wrong in "Slander"'s first release. However, you are wrong to say that it is a minor error in how it was covered. It is significant that she got it wrong because her point was precisely that only USA Today covered it. In her correction, she still gets it wrong, failing to note that the Washington Times and Associated Press reported the story, saying that only "three papers" reported it. Hundreds of local papers rely upon the Associated Press for stories, so the AP's coverage surely made even more reports in these papers. You also concede that she misquoted Gore slightly. You also appear to believe the fact that Gore is looking at John Paul Jones and Lafayette rather than Washington and Franklin. However, you say, "We can't see just which busts Gore was pointing at." Yes we can. One can tell by watching the MRC video and if you watch the original C-Span video, it leaves no shred of doubt. You didn't address my analysis of Coulter's claim that only conservative women have their looks made fun of, so I guess you concede that, too. That makes me 4 for 4 on my analysis. Addressing your claim that I haven't read the book, I have, in fact, read a good portion of it. The errors I listed were, in fact based on on-line criticisms, but I checked them for myself. Finally, people have recently been questioning whether you're Ann Coulter herself. I was the first to raise the question on my website. It's just that you appear to mimic Ann's writing/dissembling style. Since you deny that you are, I'll accept your denial won't make any accusations for now.
Rating: 
Summary: Slumber : Boring Diatribe of a Niche Pundit
Review: Personally I would recommend a more engaging piece of fiction, such as ... oh, say Moby Dick. If you do, though, please remember to support your local library (our new governor forgot about those).
|
