Rating: 
Summary: Spreading the Love
Review: Just what America really needs, another sociopathic hatemonger with a best seller to spread their message of conservative brand racism. Just when you thought David Duke was long gone, along comes Ann Coulter. I think the target audience for her book is teenaged skinheads with persistant acne and no friends to play with.
Rating:
Summary: Over-the-top Hatemongering
Review: If you could yell "fire!" in a crowded theater in book form, it would be this book. Slimey, horrible, and dishonest to the core. True conservatives should avoid this book. It makes conservatives look like hysterical nazis, which they are not.
Rating:
Summary: .....
Review: She really is a closed minded moron. If I could I'd give this zero stars.
Rating:
Summary: I wrote the same review about Franken's Book
Review: This book, much like Franken's inane "Lying Liars...", is part of the growing uncivility in today's political discourse. Instead of making logical arguments about improving Americans' daily lives, these pundits on both sides of the aisle focus on vicious personal attacks. It is a testament to their uselesness that none of these books actually contain prescriptions to IMPROVE the average person's life.It is easy to debase other people and to find flaws in other's positions and arguments but much harder to find solutions. From now on, I will only read political books that contain ideas/suggestions instead of the usual bile.
Rating:
Summary: Coulter takes political debate to an all-time low
Review: It makes me ill to see so many sadly mislead readers writing reviews that echo Coulter's hateful and slanderous writing style. Any hope for an open constructive debate is lost in the destructive rehtoric. I'm not an ultra-leftist liberal, or even a registered Democrat for that matter, but I hate what Coulter's book and books like it do to the political debate. For God's sake people, liberals are not "cockroaches" or "jerk-offs" or "traitors." They are people who want to change the world for the better, and regaurdless of whether you agree with their methods and idiologies, hastily dismissing them as traitors accomplishes nothing more than pump up your own ultra-right-wing egos. I have a hard time understanding how literate, moderately educated people from the richest nation in the world could be so thouroughly mired in such a base and malevolent form of debate. You want to talk polotics? you want to get your right-wing point across? Fine. Just don't be so ridiculous about it. Y'all write like a bunch of idiots.
Oh, and one more thing, I read one reviewer who said he finally felt like he wasn't reading Propoganda. For God's sake man, how the hell do you define propoganda? Coulter, above all other things, is definitely propogandist, and whether you're on the left or right, if you don't believe that, then you're lying to yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: finally something that makes sense
Review: As a college student, its difficult to get an opinion as candid as Ann's. After years of hearing history professors drone on like idiots, finally i was able to read something that didnt make me feel like i was being propagandized. When you read this book, you will feel that you are getting a very honest and accurate portrayal of American history that actually makes sense. Any concerned American should definitely read this book- i was so captivated i read it in one day.
Rating:
Summary: Well researched and thought out. Go Ann!
Review: It's pretty obvious from the various reviews that every Democrat on the planet hates this book. I wonder how many of them actually read the book. It's indesputable proof that McCarthy was right on the money, probably didn't go far enough to stamp out communism in the US government, and that several Democratic public officials, including a few presidents, actively defended known Soviet spies. She's not making this stuff up, guys. History can be biased by those who tell it. There are two sides to every story. I think that every American should hear Ann's well researched side. Sometimes when you idolize a political party it's difficult to hear that they've done something wrong. That doesn't mean that they're innocent, though. I'd like to see these soviet cables for myself. Does anyone know a websight where they can be accessed?
Rating:
Summary: Liberals Now Stooping To Planting News Headlines Instead of
Review: analyzing the contents of this book, which is what one is obligated to do, when one presumes to be able to write a review of this book. I felt it my duty to my fellow man--something even more basic than patriotic--to derisively debunk the jerk-off reviewer from NY, NY, who opportunistically and nastily exploited a news blurb from today's headlines as his imitative crap in place of a real review. That jack-off from NY, NY completely distorted the news of the Bush Admin. "exposing a CIA operative". I will now correct him word for word in that intentionally discontented exaggeration that was meant to libel the Bush Admin. (AGAIN). It also shows how incompetently one-minded the leftarded libs are because that reviewer from NY followed submissively, exactly the same strategy used by the 10 democratic donkeys who claim that they're running for oval office. First of all, CNN ISN'T reporting that the Bush Admin. released the name of a CIA operative! For that jerk-off, CNN was reporting that the Bush Admin. was accused by a former U.S. ambassador, who was anti-war, of leaking the CIA operative's name (his wife), which in itself is of no validity these days because that anti-war figure is cancerously prejudiced, like the democratic losers. Secondly, further proving that nothing is as absolutely certain like that wanker from NY dictated, without a chance for recourse, the Bush Admin. has disestablished this slander, as has Karl Rove, whose own anti-war accuser even, earlier in the day, backslid on his previous charges of Rove being the leaker. Third and finally, the libel in itself is not even represented straightforwardly! There were no names of any CIA operatives leaked--columnist Robert Novak himself denied that he was told it was a CIA operative. Novak corrected that he was told by his source at the CIA that the name leaked was that of a simple ANALYST, which is hugely different from that of an operative's. Further, Novak continued that his source at the CIA didn't expressly tell him the analyst's name--he said that he was told that the CIA analyst inspired her husband, the former U.S. ambassador and anti-war critic, to accept a mission. So it was indirectly implied in passing, at the most. I still can't believe the laughable lenghts leftarded libs will go to in their injured hallucinations that they can somehow ensure a democratic election victory next year--which is by mercilessly posting anti-Bush tarnishes on the internet.
Rating:
Summary: This book is an outrage! Read it to see what I mean!
Review: This is the first book which has ever made my blood boil. Great job, Ann. Any person who has a good grasp of history, foreign policy, and politics can get their sensibilities insulted by this arrogant, inaccurate, lying author who doesn't bother to check her "facts." I read this book simply to see how crazy her views really are, which I had only read about secondhand before. It is an outrage that she uses the powerful word, treason against men and women who love this country more than she does and clearly know more about America than she does. Unfortunately, liars such as her have helped to convince the public to vote for bigots who are helping destroy our country and the rest of the world while we are at it, all the while cloaking our faults in the religious and moral superiority which we don't possess. Unfortunately, like these other bigots she is intelligent, articulate, and scares the heck out of people so we'll vote for more Republican draft-dodgers who fabricate foreign intelligence and ruin our economy, which was once robust. Bravo for this book- for it exposes her massive vulnerabilities for all of us to see.
Rating:
Summary: Vitriolic
Review: Disappointing. Coulter froths at the mouth and distorts too many facts. The writing is too emotional instead of intelligent.
| 
