The "Mainstream" Is Located In France (Ann Coulter Slams The French-Looking Democrats)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 10/29/03 | Ann Coulter

[ontos-on]

"Oh, that was taken at my house. Ann just dropped in unexpectedly one day to ask my views on a number of subjects."

You nailed it, best response. Nothing more can be said. Well done.

[Qwinn]

"I cannot figure out their end game. They must be convinced that they have a chance of pulling off a socialist political revolution in the US."

I do believe this is actually the case. Either that, or with the massive trashing they've taken in every election since 1994, they decided "Well, we'll probably lose, but it's now or never". I'd prefer it to be the former, because if they really think they can -win- "2017", I think they're out of their minds and the shock of disillusionment will probably paralyze them. If they already know they've half lost and they're desperate, that's a bigger problem. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they manufacture some sort "voter fraud" conspiracy in 2004 and start launching serious "home-grown" (*cough* BS *cough*) terrorism. They'll still lose, but it would in essense bring the war on terror within our borders for the foreseeable future, and I really hope that can still be avoided.

I think 2017 will happen. It will fail. But it may cause a great deal of damage in the process :(

Qwinn

[MissAmericanPie]

"Among Bush's "many unworthy judicial nominees," the Times said, Brown is "among the very worst" – more "out of the mainstream" than all the rest! Even Teddy Kennedy, who might be well advised to withhold comment on a woman's position relative to a moving body of water, has described Brown as "out of the mainstream," adding, "Let's just hope this one can swim."

Liberals are hysterical about Justice Brown principally because she is black. Nothing enrages them so much as a minority who does not spend her days saying hosannas to liberals."

The biggest reason they hate her is because she is a strict consitutionalist who refuses to make up it's meaning to suit her private agendas. In fact Constitutionalism is her agenda. She prescribes to the strictest interpretation of the Constitution.

If we ever do anything as an activist web site, it should be to go to D.C. if neccessary and shout the walls of the Capitol down to get her on the bench. It is of major importance.

[Qwinn]

"She prescribes to the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. If we ever do anything as an activist web site, it should be to go to D.C. if neccessary and shout the walls of the Capitol down to get her on the bench. It is of major importance."

Marry me? *grin*

Qwinn

[laurav]

Something's a little strange about that camera angle ... like her hands have been photo-shopped on. Anyone else see that? Or taken from an odd angle.

When it comes to judicial issues, the Times' idea of "mainstream" has no resemblence to reality.

[BlueString]

Plausible

[milkmanD]

The Democrats and the New York Times are absolutely correct. We're just troglodyte, trailer park, and flyover country white trash.

And this is different from saying "all * are thieves" in what way?

[PLK]

Fortunately for liberals, soccer moms hear that a nominee is "extreme" and "out the mainstream" and are too frightened to ask for details. (Ironically, based on ticket sales and TV ratings, soccer is also out of the mainstream.)

Soccer . . . . ugh!

But oh-so-European and therefore loved by the left. Give me Americano football any day. As our 14-year old daughter said the other day as we sat in Kinnick stadium watching our beloved Hawkeyes pummel Penn State, "Whoever invented football must have been a genius!"

[At _War_With_Liberals]

The Dims must be seen as an enemy and not a competing vision for the US. They have shown that they will destroy this nation to achieve their socialist, globalist goals.

The republican rhetoric should include this new political reality. I think that they are terrified that the revelation of Dim goals might lead to unrest in the country and a diminishment of their power. Either that, or they are part of the conspiracy. Both ways, we lose.

[TEXOKIE]

bttt

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"You give them too much credit for thinking."

Disagree.

Within the last year, the Dims, DNC, media, courts, UN, former allies, have colluded against Republicans and the status quo.

I have watched it unfold, and its about much more than 2004 or Bush. It is about a new AmeriKa. All of the above elements came together at the same time. I watched it happen closely.

The Republicans are not thinking. This is about much more than 2004 or Bush, its about revolution.

[Qwinn]

"The republican rhetoric should include this new political reality."

Not yet. Not till the bulk of "normal" Democrats who have just been confused by too much propaganda come to their senses. Reformed Lefties actually often make very good, effective Republicans (see David Horowitz). The Dems in office have only just begun to reveal their true natures - give it another couple of years for the ones that we want on our side (like Miller) to jump ship on their own.

Besides, I think 2004 is in the bag. The Dem rhetoric got so hysterical so early that there's almost nothing they could come out with that could shock people come election time to not vote for Bush. They've desensitized the public to their rants, I think. They've pulled every trick in the book already and couldn't get him into losing election numbers.

And don't forget, Bush's numbers still aren't lower than they were under Reagan a year before he won in a landslide.

We're not so desperate that we have to risk being seen as extremist in attacking the Dems. The truth of their loyalties is becoming clearer and clearer to millions, and it's having it's effect. Their loss of total propagandic control of all media is killing them as well.

They'll very likely lose anyway. Only pull out the nukes as a last resort. Patience, young jedi. Our time will come.

Qwinn

[smalltown]

Google knows all.
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=456672

[45Auto]

I cannot figure out their end game

Liberalism is a mental disorder. As such, it makes "sense" to liberals that a Utopian society is a real possibility, if only the "great unwashed" would listen to their brilliant words. The great hope of liberals is that a society of truly equal people can be established if enough people would be willing to give up part of their living standard.

Thus, the putrid bumper sticker "Live simply so that others can simply Live". The morons really do want to establish a nation based on the French model of egalitarianism, or "equality of outcome". In order to do that, they must have a strong centralized government with no bounds to its authority to redistribute the wealth of the nation, i.e., steal it from those who make it and give it to those parasites that don't. In order to do that, they must destroy the Republic and the Constitution. That's their effing "end game". Little do they understand from history that those who have tried this before have literally destroyed their societies in spasms of civil violence.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

You make a good argument. I hope this is what the RNC is planning. It is still risky to let the Dem left wage a war with their rhetoric, firing up millions of their sheeple. I hope these people do not get out of control. Hatred is a dangerous emotion to evoke on a large scale, and is hard to just 'turn off' with a shift in Republican strategy.

[goldstategop]

Actually their hatred is good news. These people have long forgotten how to win an argument. And they ran of out of ideas long ago.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Do you think that the new world order and the Dem alliance with our enemies is just about Iraq?

Or is it about a shared goal?

[MissAmericanPie]

Hahaha, you would rue the day.

[ontos-on]

""I cannot figure out their end game. They must be convinced that they have a chance of pulling off a socialist political revolution in the US." I do believe this is actually the case. Either that, or with the massive trashing they've taken in every election since 1994, they decided "Well, we'll probably lose, but it's now or never". I'd prefer it to be the former, because if they really think they can -win- "2017", I think they're out of their minds and the shock of disillusionment will probably paralyze them. If they already know they've half lost and they're desperate, that's a bigger problem. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they manufacture some sort "voter fraud" conspiracy in 2004 and start launching serious "home-grown" (*cough* BS *cough*) terrorism. They'll still lose, but it would in essense bring the war on terror within our borders for the foreseeable future, and I really hope that can still be avoided. I think 2017 will happen. It will fail. But it may cause a great deal of damage in the process :(

I think that it is somewhat more complicated. They believe that with their stranglehold over the media and education, they can eventually bring about such a change in the ethos of the average American that their ideology will indeed be "mainstream".. Indeed, part of their program is to constantly repeat that their values are the mainstream values and that real American values are "out of the mainstream". This is precisely the topic Ann's article was about.

In the 70's the liberals were frightened by what they were seeing as a reemergence of traditional American values after the 60's. It was emerging all over the popular culture in a way that unmistakenly was a kind of hard hat response to the hippie leftist culture. This was a clear popular cultural movement. It really did scare the lefties. What happened? Well, leftist think tankers had a lot of meetings frantically trying to figure out how to respond. Their answer was to try to co-opt rather than to oppose what was traditional Americana. The Carter candidacy was a part of this effort. It was stealth. Appear red white and blue on the one hand; on the other, find ways to sell leftist initiatives as really what America was all about anyway. This is when they started talking about "our traditional values" and "mainstream values". Prior to this the left took a more confrontational stance against traditional American culture, thinking and claiming that it was just passe' and so over.

When this was adjusted in the 70's, the left began the long slow effort. They were thrown into panic during the Reagan-zeit, because he trumped them with authentic American values and that was what they really could not stand about him. They smoldered throughout his administrations, but they reemerged with the Bork and Clarance Thomas nomination-fights. The essential claim was that Bork was out of the mainstream. He had been direct in his published work and the lefties did monumental research intrying to distort whatever he said into an offense against this or that political faction. Republican weak sisters lost both fights in the media, but Clarence Thomas was able to squeak through, in the end, because of his race. {The Anita Hill claim, I am sure, was complete bs; Nina Todtenburg of NPR was a principal bad actor.)

All the while however, inthe public schools, PC marxist-feminism was being indoctrinated at an ever bolder pace. The left hopes that they can slowly change what is perceived as normal or "mainstream" so it is ripe for their plucking and then lights out on America. Gays and the continuing dimunition of men in the media is part of this. Look at the ads. Is there anything noble or admirable in America that is ever presented? The answer is obvious I believe.

This is closer to what they really think, I believe.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Plus, the military and the left are natural enemies. This is good.