*******National Review Boycott Called**********

[PrivacyChampion]

This is a call to boycott National Review based on the firing of Ann Coulter. We must stand by Ann through this time and I call upon all FReepers to join the boycott by: 1. Not posting any material by NR magazine or its columnists 2. By cancelling your subscriptions 3. By cancelling advertising 4. By visiting their website and giving them a good FReeping Enjoin your comments on this thread.

[Psalm 73]

"those postcard inserts in them, soliciting a subscription. You might want to just write a short note across the lines you're supposed to fill in..."

Great idea, all my old issues still contain those cards, (I use them as book marks).
(BTW, this is something I do with SSAE from Insurance & Credit companies, I stuff some Bible tracks in and send them back out. I didn't ask for them to load up my mail box, I have to drag them in, open them up and throw them out, so now I don't let them take up space in my garbage - if they don't like it, they can stop sending them).

[babble-on]

As a "lumpen mesomorph" myself, I was offended by Coulter's piece. Seriously, I think if people don't want to get NR, that's fine, I don't read it myself, but there are two sides to every labor dispute, and there are probably two sides to this one.

[VA Advogado]

On Maher's ABC show, Coulter accused National Review of having "censored" her by refusing to run the follow-up column. She said yesterday that National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his deputies "are just girly-boys."

Sorry. I'm not participating. I love Ann, but for her to go from one set of girly men (NR) to another (Maher) makes her no better than that two-faced Arianna Huffington.

[RnMomof7]

I'm on ,that was a good and fair article..

[VinnyTex]

It is policies such as the pro-Kosovo stance of National Review that got us to where we are Today, no conservative needs that rag and liberals never liked it either, it will go the way of Maher. Coulter can do much better.

First, Buckley came out against Clinton's Kosovo war...

And it looks like Ann is gonna go the way of Mayer... She keeps goin on that idiot's show.... Ariana Huffington style...

[MasonGal]

Uh-oh - my husband and I just sent in a subscription for our oldest son, who is a freshman in college.

He was excited that we were giving him a subscription. Now - I'm going to have to tell him to forget about it.

Any other ideas out there for a nice Conservative magazine (gift subscription) for our college freshman? BTW - he just joined the Young Republicans Club at college!! Thanks!!

[vrwc54]

Boycotts, IMHO, are soooo leftist.

I LOVED Ann's second column, but there have been some GREAT articles in NR on Islamic fundamentalists and other subjects that I will still post.

I consider them a valuable source.

[lavaroise]

They fired her because she advocated a conquest of the middle East akin to the US conquest by destroying terrorist Indian monarchies. See that is not PC at the NR. Ann is right, we have lost this war before we begun it if we do not focus on conquering the lands, bodies and minds of those nutcases with G_d at our side.

[KLT]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," the conservative commentator declared in her column on National Review Online.

So this is what got Ann fired from that ragsheet! Ann is right again! NR, you are spineless!

[B Knotts]

Hmmm...let's see, the insights of William F. Buckley, vs. those of the intellectual Ann Coulter...

Sorry; I believe I'll stick with Mr. Buckley.

I wasn't a subscriber; perhaps I will subscribe now. I find Ann Coulter to be, frankly, rather low brow.

[Chemnitz]

Have you noticed that the conservative women who speak on TV are beautiful and feminine, that the Left-wingers are bitter old hags? That does affect my thinking. I have emailed National Review. I am going to cancel my subscription.

Some people griping about Coulter being on Maher's show remind me of the kid who said, "Hey, little brother is praying with his eyes open and he's looking around." To which my parents said, "How do you know unless your eyes were open and you were looking around?"

It is not a sin to be a conservative on a TV show. The Left-wing dominates broadcasting. I am happy that conservatives put up with the crap they get when they appear. In contrast, it is a sin to watch Maher. So let's get vice and virtue straight. Coulter should speak at whatever forum is allowed, as long as she stays conservative. No one should contribute to Maher's ratings by watching him. Instead, rent his classic movie, "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle..."

The subscription card idea is interesting, especially with a message on it. When the GOP asked me for money, I always mailed it back with a total of what I was giving towards: $0 for the Senate trial of Clinton, $0 for the investigation of Chinese spying, $0 for Gingrich's moral leadership as Speaker. I am inclined to give to the GOP now, but at that point I was disinclined to support them.

I told NR I would no longer subscribe unless I saw an apology to Coulter published.

Letters matter much more than email, so send an actual letter to them:

Write or call:

National Review
215 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10016
212-679-7330

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[nancetc]

I called NR this morning 10:50 AM CST. The woman checked to see if they were no longer carrying the Ann Coulter editorials. She came back to the phone and stated yes that is true they will no longer be printing Ann Coulter's editorials. I said I think that's a shame as I now won't subscribe and I think you'll lose alot of subscriptions....

She did not agree that they'll lose subscriptions. Perhaps you who do subscribe ought to call and cancel so they get the message. Not just the "I'll not renew approach." That way they get the message.

[TLBSHOW]

forced conversion? sheesh.

Back to the dark ages. There it is again. I have seen this accusatory presumption many times.

I did not see anything about Forced Conversion to anything.

I have heard many liberals jump to the same conclusion.

This conclusion is usually reserved to those who have an unnatural fear of proselytizing of any kind.

I never assumed she meant forced converstion, therefore I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Since I usually agree with true traditional American conservatives, I do not have a default mechanism set up that automatically assumes the worst meaning from the mouth of a Christian conservative.

I think we should give this ally the benefit of the doubt.

I presume what she really meant was that we need to get rid of the murderers who keep these people away from the truth; that keep these people in the bondage of a false religion that will produce yet more terrorists in the future.

Ann was rightly getting directly to the root of the problem; the leaders will kill anyone who would attempt to give them a chance to hear the tenets of biblical Christianity, so they are stuck with this religion of terrorism that they have. You have to get rid of the Osama bin Ladens

Her sentiments are much like General Douglas MacArthur's at the end of World War 2; he pushed hard to send as many Christian missionaries as possible to Japan to replace the anscestor and emperor worship that was the existing religion (their leaders were already either dead or powerless). He saw this religion as inferior to Christianity and also as a reason for their aggression.

She is just wanting to get rid of the underlying problem, the religion of following the koran as it is written.

posted by freeper OriginalIntent

[TLBSHOW]

Call and stop your subscription to National Review today. Send them the message they need.

BUMP

[TLBSHOW]

By cancelling advertising AND take out a subscription and then cancel it!

GOOD IDEAS LOWBRIDGE WHERE IS REGISTERED WHEN WE NEED SIGNS

[Bub]

....thirty years ago cancelled NR and the pseudo- conservatism of Bill Buckley and company.

[oldvike]

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm thinking they were wanting to ax Ann long before this article came out and were just waiting for a good excuse to fire her. Well, they let the editorial get published with the "convert them all to christiananity" comment and *poof* they now have a reason to fire her. If they truly valued Ann's contributions then they would have asked her to remove those comments prior to publishing.

[Jay W]

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm thinking they were wanting to ax Ann long before this article came out and were just waiting for a good excuse to fire her. Well, they let the editorial get published with the "convert them all to christiananity" comment and *poof* they now have a reason to fire her. If they truly valued Ann's contributions then they would have asked her to remove those comments prior to publishing.

Yes, which is why the "men" at National Review are girly-boys.