posted June 11, 2006 02:07 PM            

I've been following Ann Coulter for years, and I am personally confidant that she doesn't want to silence anyone. It's just her brand of humor.

Her comments about the First Amendment are a joke. But nothing I say is going to make you think otherwise, although it's kinda amusing that people are getting so up in arms over her and the things she says.

Not that I would personally equate the two, however Michael Moore illicits the same response in conservatives that apparently Ann Coulter illicits in liberals, so I guess I understand why you don't get it/her/her brand of humor.

I think it's kinda sad that a grown woman would throw anything at another grown woman, regardless of what she says. Unless I'm totally off base about your age...then it might make a bit more sense.

quote:

---

...like all Republican neo-cons she is NOT talking about HER freedom to spout her hate and divisional garbage. She is speaking about silencing anyone who dissents and disagrees with her and the neo-con philosophy. She is actually speaking out in favor of her fascist ideology and elitism.

---

It seems you're one of those people I was referring to in an earlier post, who think that their opinions are "fact"? Just asking, cause that's how you state things. I mean, the way you talk, one would think you got to actually sit in on all the secret Neo Con meetings where Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter talk with Dick Cheney about world domination.

posted June 11, 2006 02:51 PM              

You don't know me so please don't catergorize me as "one of those people you were talking about " who think that what they say is fact. Just because you said that does that make what you said fact? You couldn't be further off the mark. You aren't even in the ball park. I have stated on these threads before that my opinion is just that, an opinion I hold. It doesn't mean that I think it is absolute truth. I don't think that what you say is absolute truth either or anyone else for that matter.

I have just as much right in a democracy to not like Ann Coulter as you do to like her, Isis.

How do I know that Ann Coulter is joking? How do YOU know? I should just take your word for it as FACT? Can you read inflection and see body language into her words that are written down? The fact that she would say something like that, even jokingly, shows proof of her lack of intelligence. If not for that amendment the twit would be out of a career.

posted June 11, 2006 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

I could be wrong. But then again, so can you.

---

quote:

---

I think you are one of those people that I talk about who, while they feel they can say what they think, and feel as they feel, others that disagree with them can't.

---

I guess you haven't read any of my previous posts in this thread. Actually, it seems you've not ready any of my posts. I don't care what you think really, people whow know me know that's not the case, and that's really what counts.

How do I know Ann Coulter is joking? It seems obvious to me.

Seems you're the infallible one since you KNOW that people who say things you personally find offensive lack intelligence. I think Michael Moore is stupid, sure, but I couldn't state with any level of assurance that he lacks intelligence. I don't know the man. You know Ann Coulter I guess?

quote:

---

Well, now if I had made that same joke about the amendment saying I would be in favor of abolishing it if it meant silencing people like Ann Coulter would you think I was joking,

---

You, no I wouldn't think you're joking because I haven't spent years reading your opinions on things, seeing you speak at colleges or watching you on political talk shows. If your brand of humor was based around facetious tongue-in-cheek comments and irony, and your political leaning wasn't fanatical leftist, I would probably LMAO.

Jon Stewart has the same brand of humor, and I enjoy his show, even though he is not a conservative and even though he often makes fun of Bush. It's his brand of humor and delivery that I find funny, even if I don't agree with what he's making fun of all the time.

I would not however, throw a pie or anything else at you even if I thought you weren't joking.

posted June 11, 2006 06:20 PM            

quote:

---

I think it's kinda sad that a grown woman would throw anything at another grown woman, regardless of what she says. Unless I'm totally off base about your age...then it might make a bit more sense.

---

posted June 12, 2006 11:36 AM            

I know you're confused, confounded, outraged but not speechless. Unfortunately, your speech is so much hot air escaping through the wrong orifice.

When Coulter makes a point, there's always an intellectual argument contained within. As desperate as the radical left are to brand Coulters remarks, hate speech, it's really a reaching out of hands to those less intellectually gifted. An effort being made to break the hypnotic spell of the Chicken Littles who find their little beaks pressed firmly down on the line drawn in the dirt by the purveyors of hate mongering speech on the left who are desperately attempting to shut Coulter up.

Now, if the smartest woman ever to trod the earth attempted to shut Coulter up...that's Hillary...and got her head handed to her by Ann Coulter, how do you think the rest of the cadre from No Thought Island are going to fare?

posted June 12, 2006 11:49 AM            

When the 4 witches appeared with the Traitor John Kerry all across the country and were introduced to audiences as the grief stricken widows of 9/11 and then proceeded to attack the President as being responsible for 9/11 and further declined to place the responsibility for the attack where it belonged...the terrorists themselves, they lost their "untouchable" status.

Ann Coulter gave the griefnazis exactly what they deserved. There are no "touch-me-nots" when people enter the arena of politics. That status exists only in the minds of the inhabitants of No Thought Island.

The Nation's Pulse
From God to Godless: The Real Liberal Terror
By Jeffrey Lord
Published 6/12/2006 12:07:38 AM

The book reviewers were absolutely hostile, enraged at what they read.

"The book is one which has the glow and appeal of a fiery cross on a hillside at night. There will undoubtedly be robed figures who gather to it, but the hoods will not be academic. They will cover the face," snarled one, ominously comparing it to a work of the Ku Klux Klan. "This fascist thesis," angrily spluttered another, "...This...pure fascism....What more could Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin ask for...?" Still others piled on. The book was dismissed as a series of "fanatically emotional attacks" that "succeeded in turning the stomachs of its readers." The author drew howls of outrage, the lesser of which focused on adjectives like "rude" and "obnoxious" before descending into cries of "fascist."

The name of the book was not Godless. And the author was not Ann Coulter. The book that drew such ferocious attention was God and Man at Yale. The author, a recent Yale graduate, was a precocious William F. Buckley, Jr.

God and Man at Yale, published in 1951, was a then-startling protest about the liberal bias of a major university, in this case Buckley's alma mater. What was equally startling was the reaction to it described above. But if this type of savage response was news in 1951, the lesson from the reaction to Ann Coulter's Godless and her criticisms of four politically liberal 9/11 widows is that, sadly, absolutely nothing has changed when it comes to liberal reactions to a challenge of their worldview. In fact, Ms. Coulter is only the latest in a long line of prominent conservative writers, thinkers, activists and leaders to be similarly assailed.

From Buckley to Goldwater, from Reagan to Gingrich, from Rush Limbaugh to Clarence Thomas and Ann Coulter, conservatives of different styles and mediums have been treated precisely the same. No matter the topic, no matter the personality, whether the year is 1951 or 2006 they are angrily assailed for their views.

Buckley was the first target of this fury with his tome on the liberal goings-on at Yale. For Goldwater and Reagan it was their warnings about too much government and the human yearning for freedom. For Gingrich it was the calling to account of forty years of failed policies on everything from welfare to taxes to the arrogance of congressional power. Limbaugh captured an audience of millions by laughingly spinning out the results of the latest liberal idea run amok, while Thomas propounded a conservative legal doctrine from the bench.

As with Coulter (and many others -- think of talkers/writers Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, culture maven David Horowitz, and more), in every single instance their words and actions are met with some firestorm of name-calling, verbal abuse, attempts at censorship and worse. While these furies take different forms, they have exactly the same end goal: to so discredit both message and messenger that they will never again be allowed to exist in polite society again.

FOR BUCKLEY IT WAS SCATHING book reviews. He was lucky. For Goldwater, the first modern conservative to win a presidential nomination, the unending torrent of abuse verged on the apoplectic. CBS News solemnly reported the week of his nomination that Goldwater's first act after the convention would be to travel to Germany for a visit to "Berchtesgaden, once Hitler's stamping ground." And what will the conservative Goldwater do once there? "There are signs," CBS reporter Daniel Schorr said ominously, "that the American and German right wings are joining up..." Got that? Barry Goldwater, said CBS in so many words, was really a Nazi. With a presidential nomination in hand, he was literally heading to Hitler's home to get the international Nazi movement rolling. The story, from the trip to Germany to the visit to Hitler's estate was, of course, false from beginning to end.

Equally hysterical was a liberal magazine that published a 64-page "psychological study" of the candidate which began: "Do you think Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as President of the United States?" You guessed it -- after claiming to poll over 12,000 psychiatrists across the country, the answer was no. New York Times columnist C.L. Sulzberger answered the question this way: "The possibility exists that, should he (Goldwater) enter the White House, there might not be a day after tomorrow." In case voters didn't get the message, Democratic strategist and LBJ aide Bill Moyers designed the so-called "daisy commercial" that saw a child counting the petals of a flower disappear in the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion.

"It is extremely interesting how people react to the telling of the truth," Buckley wrote in an introduction to a 1970s edition of his classic. Indeed. What seemingly frightens liberals is the penetrating questions and different policy proscriptions that challenge their once secure worldview. As time has moved on and liberal solutions have been tried and found drastically wanting, the American public quite naturally has looked elsewhere for answers.

For the liberals of 1951 the truly frightening aspect of Buckley's book was not just what it said but how it sold. It became something new in America -- a conservative bestseller. In the words of its publisher, God and Man at Yale was "a sensation." The same phenomenon happened again in 1960 when Goldwater wrote a 123-page book entitled The Conscience of a Conservative. Ignored by the mainstream media, with a first printing of a mere 10,000 copies, it sold more than four million in hardback and paperback. By now this pattern is familiar. Coulter's latest book is number one on Amazon and -- teeth-gratingly for liberals -- zooming up the New York Times bestseller list. Fox News is so popular that Kofi Annan's deputy accuses both Fox (and Limbaugh) with undermining the United Nations simply by being on the air.

MAKE NO MISTAKE. The furious reaction to Coulter in this latest episode is not about her manners but her willingness to, as liberals love to say, "speak truth to power" -- the power of the once mighty liberal establishment. From the moment Buckley's book first hit the stands, this is what these furious reactions to conservatives have been all about. And from the liberal perspective there is a true terror at what is yet to come. Buckley began by taking on the world of academia in book form, then established a conservative magazine. Now conservative books, authors and magazines abound. Goldwater paved the way in politics with a move on the presidency, something finally -- and spectacularly --accomplished by Reagan. Gingrich retook the Congress. David Horowitz zeroes in on the culture. Limbaugh spawned talk radio. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and now Alito sit on the Supreme Court, with enough conservative lawyers to fill Yankee Stadium waiting for seats on the once sacrosanct liberal precincts of the federal bench. Rupert Murdoch has had the gall to invent Fox News, a conservative TV channel, and, most humiliatingly, take over a Hollywood studio. Even the once safely liberal mainline Protestant churches -- the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and United Church of Christ -- are alarmed to find conservatives in their pews not only speaking up but seeking power within church hierarchies traditionally filled by liberals. What's next? Conservative Spielbergs and Norman Lears? Ben Stein as Ben Bernanke? Statements from the National Council of Churches praising the liberation of Iraq?

Piece by piece, trench by trench, the empire that was once American liberalism is under assault by men and women of all ages, incomes, faiths, races and professions. From academia to politics to religion, the media and the law, the liberal Humpty Dumpty has fallen from its once dominant perch. No matter how hard they try, liberals will never be able to put it back together again. The venom spewed at Ann Coulter's demand to liberals to stop hiding behind grief or war records or illness in a debate is not really about Ann Coulter at all. It is one very influential section of American society realizing that their world, the world they created and ran for most of the twentieth century, is dying in front of their eyes.

To put two female faces of 2006 on what began with Mr. Buckley's 1951 "sensation," Katie may be moving from morning to night, but it's Ann everybody is reading.

posted June 12, 2006 12:12 PM            

Liberal has become synonymous with Leftist but it's not true.

These leftist purveyors of hate for everything American and supporters of every enemy of America, including Saddam Hussein and the terrorists ARE NOT liberals.

Joe Lieberman is one of the last Liberals in the Congress of the United States. Radical leftists in the democrat party are attempting to give Joe his walking papers. Most Liberals already have taken a walk...a voluntary walk away from the haters of America who are the democrat party.

Why Ann Coulter is right
Posted: June 9, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public-policy debates: Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," and true to form, liberals have been fomenting in response.

The reason they are is not because Ann has broken some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife or relative. Rather, the reason they are so outraged by this is because it stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who "can't be criticized."

Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton and Alan Colmes have been laughable in the trumped-up outrage that they share for the statements Coulter makes in "Godless" in reference to the "Jersey Girls." The Jersey Girls are four wives who lost their husbands on 9-11. They jumped into the 2004 election debate early on, cutting commercials for John Kerry, and they are on record for saying some rather hideous remarks about Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove, not to mention President Bush.

In recent years, liberal spokespeople have grown infamous for self-destruction when they are put into arenas where free debate, give-and-take response and actual dialogue take place. As Ann argues rather convincingly in her new book, this sets up the structure of "liberal infallibility." In other words, liberals' use of victims of tragedies would never be criticized, so the plan is to find as many victims to become the mouthpieces for the left as possible.

An interesting point: When the GOP invited widows of 9-11 to participate in their national convention, charges went up from the left of "pure political posturing." Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard-pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the president's opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry's name was never even invoked, and their involvement in the public debate ended that night.

The Jersey Girls, on the other hand, have consistently spoken out and advocated on behalf of leftist interests through the 9-11 commission's findings to the operation of the global War on Terror, the elections of 2004, etc. In other words, they chose, or the liberal Democratic Party chose for them, to enter the fray, to don the gloves and to mix it up.

But what if they're wrong? What if, even in as much pain as they have endured at the hands of terrorists, the substance of what they argue for is as loony as the day is long? Even if Cindy Sheehan lost her heroic son in the War on Terror, does that now mean that everything Cindy Sheehan says is correct?

Which is Ann's point.

Ann's criticism is legitimate. If liberals in America wish truly to have a debate on the issues that we all have strong emotions about, then stand and make the point, but don't hide behind those who are ineffective, unskilled and often wrong in their views, simply because they're victims.

For the last few weeks, Rep. Jack Murtha has been crisscrossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave Marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device, after which some women and children tragically ended up dead. The Marines claimed that they were fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. The jury is still out, but thus far Murtha has yet to present evidence that contradicts the Marines' account.

Liberals are using the exact same tactics today – firing upon people of faith who believe in God, who believe God's model for marriage is what society should promote, but they do so from behind victims against whom, they believe, no one would fire back. People like the Jersey Girls, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and Jack Murtha. They do so knowing that they would lose in substantive, equitable fair debates.

Coulter's critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha. Hillary Clinton was excessively unwise in doing so. Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so, she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well-being of political discourse in general.

By paying the price for us, she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance and not to fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with.

posted June 12, 2006 01:12 PM            

How "liberal" is that?

Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:50 p.m. EDT
Ann Coulter Banned in New Jersey?

Two New Jersey Democrats are pushing to have Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," banned from all bookstores in their state because she criticized four 9/11 widows known as "the Jersey Girls."

In a joint press release issued Friday, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender say they want New Jersey retailers to "ban the sale of [Coulter's] book throughout the state."

"Ann Coulter's criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate," the two Democrats complained.

"Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books . . . She is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others."

posted June 12, 2006 01:24 PM            

How "illiberal" of them.

These people and their complicit accomplices in the leftist press are liberals...aren't they?

Saturday, June 10, 2006 12:24 p.m. EDT
Ann Coulter Receives Congressional Letter

Ann Coulter criticized four of the women whose husbands died on 9/11, and now a congressmen from the New York/New Jersey area has written a scathing letter - signed by nearly two dozen other congressmen - to the author.

In Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," she wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," and that the four were "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

In response, House Democrats from Long Island and New York City have signed their names to a letter drafted by Rep. Steve Israel (D-Huntington) demanding that Coulter apologize.

"Their personal loss should never be minimized, especially in such a cold and callous way as you attack these victims in your book," Israel wrote.

"It's lawmakers who have seen firsthand what [the 9/11 widows] went through and are outraged by what Ann Coulter wrote about them," Israel told Newsday.

"We understand that you are in the book business and that controversy might make for good sales," Israel wrote to Coulter, "but we would urge you to consider that making mean-spirited comments about women trying to do the right thing might not be worth the resultant rise on the bestseller list."

In his letter, Israel called the women "responsible citizens" who raised their voices in keeping with American tradition, Newsday reports.

Asked by Reuters why she had written about the four women, Coulter replied, "I am tired of victims being used as billboards for untenable liberal political beliefs."

posted June 12, 2006 01:34 PM            

Leftists are hypnotized by their own rhetoric, they just never take their own medicine.

Notice the desperation to shut Ann Coulter up. The very same thing the left accuses conservatives of doing when conservatives challenge leftist political, economic and/or social beliefs with intellectual arguments they can't handle.

Leftists think they can make any hateful comment, tell any lie or combination of lies or trot out an "untouchable" to make them and escape the searing flames of the blowback.

posted June 12, 2006 01:38 PM              

Jwhop

posted June 12, 2006 01:56 PM            

quote:

---

When Coulter makes a point, there's always an intellectual argument contained within.

---

If "intellectual" means that instead of saying something reasonable, you say something that deviates from the point and kills the argument you're trying to make then I guess you'd be right.

Thanks for showing the articles which demonstrate quite well how the Right is indeed attempting to shut those women up.

The WND article is particularly distressing: "By paying the price for us, she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance and not to fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with." What a terrible way to spin this story. No one says that you guys can't disagree with the wives' politics, or Sheehan's politics for that matter. That's a politically expedient illusion. If you guys were smart you'd be able to come up smelling like roses challenging these women's politics. All you have to do is respectfully disagree. How difficult is that? You say, "I understand that these women have suffered a loss, and my heart goes out to them, it's terrible to lose a loved one like that. However, I believe that their political arguments have been overly tempered by their grief. Here's my perspective on what really happened, and here's how I support my argument." Do you know how easy it is to defend a statement like that? If someone even tries to play the victim card, you just reitterate that you sympathize with the loss, but it's the politics you're addressing.

posted June 12, 2006 01:58 PM            

There are those who believe they can engage in inflammatory speech by posting the most inflammatory statements about the President, about the United States, about the US military and about Administration officials but don't understand they have endorsed the principle by doing it themselves.

posted June 12, 2006 02:15 PM            

Jwhop,

Coulter's sales are incredible at this time. Of course, some are trying to say it is only based on controversy, but you had it right. The comments that Ann Coulter makes in her books (especially when NOT taken out of context by the liberal left) are also backed up with fact. If people took the time to read the books instead of reading a chapter here and there, then picking out what they feel is inflammatory (much like some of the extreme lefties here do so often) then they would learn that she doesn't just make things up.

DayDreamer,

All though you are more than entitled to your opinion, the assumption that Conservatives or the "right" refuses to challenge our leaders is dead wrong. There are MANY of us that argue with our Conservative politicians (and we do make it known by contacting our congressional representatives). You can even see it here on Lindaland. Several of us are upset with our President's stand on Illegal immigration. Some challenge the Administration concerning its need to explain what is going on overseas instead of allowing the Leftest media put their taint on the news.

How many super-libs here have even relented to stating one bad thing about their Liberal representatives or even provide one iota of thanks to anything done by the Conservatives?

I am happy that you are a devout Muslim. I am Christian and I am an American. Bomb my country, harbor terrorists and yeah, I ABSOLUTELY support our government unleashing hell. It is your opinion that America just "Bombs all the Countries we don't like". IF that were true we'd wipe China off the planet for making cheap knockoffs, producing counterfiet drugs (another market that is starting to become very lucrative for Muslim terrorists- and also leads to the deaths of Americans taking those fake perscription cancer treatments). We'd have blown Iraq to smithereens and then taken over the oil fields (which you can see hasn't happened since we are paying more at the pump than every before) and we'd have bombed the living crap out of North Korea / the Sudan for their horrid treatment and slavery (Sudan) of their own people.

Nah, it seems to me that the terrorist supporters and Islamic terrorists that considers us all Infidels and evil westerners are the ones that kill what they hate. Hell, they kill their own people with car bombs, idiot homicide freaks with bombs strapped to their bodies....etc.. Yeah, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy for their cause every time I hear of one fanatical jihadist after another bombing a school bus or wedding party. Yet some in the world would complain that we are so bad for firing on a town that is harboring terrorist where women are armed (much like feeling sorry for taking out Vietnamese villages where children would walk up to our Soldiers and let loose a grenade). Nothing is fair in war and if the Iraqis / Afghani's or anyone else wants it to stop, then give up the terrorists, dimantle the training camps and by all means, NEVER make the mistake of attacking the US again.

posted June 12, 2006 02:16 PM              

Yeah... a real national treasure.

Maybe she'll use the money from her book sales to buy a bottle of bleach at the grocery store to do her roots.

Has anyone ever seen this trailer trash without BLACK roots?

posted June 12, 2006 02:19 PM            

How do you think people that are poor and living in a trailer feel about your wonderfully loving comment about trailer trash and black roots?

Sorry, but I found your statement about her to be highly hypocritical as well as rude to poor people living in trailers (that's kind of right their with MysticGemini calling people hicks).

posted June 12, 2006 02:22 PM              

Sending all of you..Lots of Love. ...

off to work..

posted June 12, 2006 02:26 PM              

She is an awful excuse for a human being.

The difference between my mean spirited comment and her [MANY] mean spirited comments is that mine is not aimed at the downtrodden.

She has it coming... widows DO NOT.

posted June 12, 2006 02:27 PM            

It's not our fault leftists can't connect the dots or even see the dots.

As for shutting people up acoustic, that's exactly what the radical leftists ARE attempting to do with Coulter and it's not going to work...not because Coulter doesn't understand the game leftists are playing but because Coulter has seen leftists are incapable of rational thought and therefore doesn't give a damn what leftists say about her.

As for me acoustic, I'm a conservative and right here acoustic, I've encouraged leftists to share their thoughts with America. I'd give leftists the biggest bullhorn and the tallest soapbox in the universe and a 24 hours national television network for leftists to do so.

I know the more leftist talk and share their loony ideas, the more they make Americans want to throw up.

Let's see acoustic, we haven't so much as seen or heard a word from the bloated brain dead moron Michael Moore, the convicted inside trader George Soros or the hard left loose cannon Teresa Heinz for some time.

posted June 12, 2006 03:19 PM            

The thing is that I know you people, and you can't help who you are. You talk tough, but inside you're afraid. You get aggressive, and then you try to play the victim. I don't think that's honest at any level whether emotional or intellectual. If you want to talk tough, stay with it. Don't recoil, and try to play victim just because someone stands up to you. "Oh, the big bad leftists are out to get me. Woe is me." Have some backbone. Show some courage of conviction. I think that's the biggest fallacy of the Right --that you guys are strong and courageous. You guys are timid. You're afraid of everything, so you attack everything. You're insecure, so you put on this big tough show, "Look at me. Look at how strong I am. I'm intimidated, so I'm going to advocate violence and repression as an answer."

Yes, Ann Coulter puts on a good show for her folks. She shows you how not to be afraid, or at least how not to look afraid. "Look at me I'm so brash I'm going to make outrageous comments to prove to Republicans that we can successfully launch an attack on our own citizens." Then the citizen revolt comes, and it's, "Oh, they're just trying to suppress us. Woe are we."