PDA

View Full Version : D - E - M - O - N - I - C - !



LWW
06-26-2011, 08:51 AM
I'm about half way through. I have the bad habit of trying to read numerous books all in the same time frame, but this one ... IMHO ... Annie's best work yet.

In typical Coulter fashion, it is extremely well researched and footnoted ... which possibly explains the far left's ongoing jihad against her ... and is full of her typical razor sharp wit, constantly exposing absurdity by examples of absurdity.

In short, it is a history ... as well as psychological profile ... of mob politics stretching from the French Revolution to the modern democrook party, and how they have always ended in a new oligarchy.

Qtec
06-26-2011, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In typical Coulter fashion, it is extremely well researched and footnoted</div></div>

Lord Monckton #2.

Q

LWW
06-26-2011, 09:38 AM
Perhaps you might take it upon yourself to actually mount a non spoon fed rebuttal ... but, mob members seldom do anything other than what the mod leaders tell them to do.

llotter
06-26-2011, 10:07 AM
It's impossible to reason with the MOB so what are the alternatives to reason?

Qtec
06-26-2011, 10:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Endnotes in Coulter's latest book <span style='font-size: 17pt'>rife with distortions and falsehoods</span>
August 07, 2006 2:14 pm ET

0 Comments

On July 7, Media Matters for America asked Random House Inc. whether it would investigate charges of plagiarism lodged against right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). Steve Ross, senior vice president and publisher of Crown Publishing Group and publisher of the Crown Forum imprint -- divisions of Random House Inc. -- responded to Media Matters by stating that charges of plagiarism against Coulter were "trivial," "meritless," and "irresponsible," and defended Coulter's scholarship by stating that she "knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the nineteen pages of hundreds of endnotes contained in Godless."

This was hardly the first time Coulter and her defenders have offered the large number of footnotes contained in her book as "evidence" of the quality of her scholarship. Also on July 7, Terence Jeffrey, editor of conservative weekly Human Events, defended Coulter's book on CNN's The Situation Room by citing her "19 pages of footnotes." And when similar questions were raised about her 2002 book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, June 2002), Coulter repeatedly cited her "35 pages of footnotes" as evidence that her claims were accurate.

In response, Media Matters decided to investigate each of the endnotes in Godless. We found a plethora of problems.

Among other things, Coulter:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>misrepresented and distorted the statements of her sources;
omitted information in those sources that refuted the claims in her book;
misrepresented news coverage to allege bias;
relied upon outdated and unreliable sources;
and invented "facts."</span>

What follows is documentation of some of the most problematic endnotes in Godless. </div></div>

link (http://mediamatters.org/research/200608070002)

Q

LWW
06-26-2011, 11:12 AM
So you let MM spoon feed you your opinion, rather than display the intellectual fortitude to find out for yourself?

I wish I could say I was surprised.

LWW
06-26-2011, 11:18 AM
Did you even read the MM link?

Of course you didn't.

You licked the spoon clean of the salacious lie in the heading and never bothered to read that their "REBUTTAL" was nothing more than word parsing the very finest of minutiae in a lame attempt to deny the obvious.

What a tool you truly are.

LWW
06-26-2011, 11:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's impossible to reason with the MOB so what are the alternatives to reason? </div></div>

The mob is incapable of reason as it operates on imagery and emotion and eschews logic at every opportunity.

Witness Snoopy just bought into the imagery of the spoon fed headline, never bothering to read the balance of the article ... which basically said "If you are still in agreement with us after reading this far, then you are the type of tool we need to further our agenda."

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 02:14 PM
Q, thanks saved me the time.

Fact is, even her publisher is making corrections in some respects for future editions like the paperback edition.

LWW
06-26-2011, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, thanks saved me the time.

Fact is, even her publisher is making corrections in some respects for future editions like the paperback edition. </div></div>

Documented by?

What's that?

Your imagination.

Imagine that.

LWW
06-26-2011, 02:41 PM
Example #1, from the link, that the tools accept blindly:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1. On Page 175, Coulter attacked "liberals" <span style='font-size: 11pt'>who would</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">Notice to the spoon fed ... the word used was "WOULD" and not "WAS" ... which denotes that an opinion was offered of what would happen if the leftists had Carte Blanche. Being that Obama appointee Kevin Jennings was the founder of GLSE, which targeted children as young as 12 being taught gay sex practices including fisting ... well, it isn't much of a stretch.</span> "foist" sex education topics such as "[a]nal sex, oral sex, fisting, dental dams, [and] 'birthing games'" on kindergarteners. Citing a November 8, 1987, New York Times article, Coulter wrote:

But in contrast to liberal preachiness about IQ, there would be no moralizing when it came to sex. Anal sex, oral sex, fisting, dental dams, "birthing games" -- all that would be foisted on unsuspecting children in order to protect kindergarteners from the scourge of AIDS. As one heroine of the sex education movement told an approving New York Times reporter, "My job is not to teach one right value system. Parents and churches teach moral values. My job is to say, 'These are the facts,' and to help the students, as adults, decide what is right for them."9

To those who find it odd that Coulter would support her claim about "fisting" being taught to kindergarteners by quoting <span style="color: #3333FF">And there you have the Alinsky tactic, attempting to force someone to defend a claim they never made ... of course, mobs love such insanity.</span> </div></div>

TRUTH VERSUS TRUTHINESS (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index.html)

LWW
06-26-2011, 02:46 PM
Example #2, from the link, that the tools accept blindly:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. On Page 248, Coulter wrote:

In an article in the New York Times on intelligent design, the design proponents quoted in the article keep rattling off serious, scientific arguments -- from [Michael J.] Behe's examples in molecular biology to [William] Dembski's mathematical formulas and statistical models. The Times reporter, who was clearly not trying to make the evolutionists sound retarded, was forced to keep describing the evolutionists' entire retort to these arguments as: Others disagree.2

That's it. No explanation, no specifics, just "others disagree." The high priests of evolution have not only forgotten how to do science, they've lost the ability to formulate a coherent counterargument.

The New York Times article Coulter cited -- "In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash" -- appeared on August 22, 2005, as Part 2 of a three-part series on the debate over the teaching of evolution. Coulter's claim that the article's author, reporter Kenneth Chang, offered "[n]o explanations" and "no specifics" from the proponents of evolution is flat-out false. Chang offered detailed explanations of how evolutionary mechanisms gave rise to blood-clotting systems, modern whales, and speciation among birds on the Galapagos Islands ("Darwin's finches"). Chang also noted: "Darwin's theory ... has over the last century yielded so many solid findings that no mainstream biologist today doubts its basic tenets, though they may argue about particulars." Finally, and most egregiously, the phrase "others disagree" appears nowhere in the article. </div></div>

And those are neither explanations nor specifics to counteract the many holes in Darwinism.

To let the truth be known, Darwin would probably slap people over what is today being taught in his name.

LWW
06-26-2011, 02:51 PM
Example #3, from the link, that the tools accept blindly:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3. On Page 87, Coulter attacked Democrats and the "pro-abortion zealots," writing:

The pro-abortion zealots demand that the Democrats swear absolute fealty to their craziest positions, and generally the Democrats are happy to comply. They need the money. In 2004, pro-abortion groups gave over $1.4 million in hard money to candidates for national office -- more than twice as much as did pro-life groups. Emily's List is a political fundraising group that gives money only to female candidates who support abortion. In 2004, Emily's List raised $34 million. By comparison, the National Right to Life Committee raised only about $1.7 million.14

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>As it happens, Coulter's figures about Emily's List and the National Right to Life Committee were accurate.</span> But the citation Coulter gave was a July 1, 2004, letter to the editor (subscription required) former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt wrote to the Chicago Tribune (though Feldt's name appears as "Febit" in Coulter's endnote). Nothing from the excerpt above appeared in Feldt's letter. Feldt's letter read as follows, in its entirety.</div></div>

And here, in moonbat logic, Coulter is wrong because the source she used had used the facts as a source ... not because she was actually wrong, and because the last name was spelled incorrectly.

Out of thousands of footnotes used in her books ... this is the 3rd worst error her detractors can come up with.

How incredibly lame is this?

LWW
06-26-2011, 02:56 PM
Example #4, from the link, that the tools accept blindly:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4. On Pages 106-107, Coulter <span style='font-size: 11pt'>claimed affirmatively that the Clinton administration destroyed evidence uncovered by Able Danger, a now-defunct military intelligence unit that some congressional Republicans have claimed -- without evidence -- identified Mohamed Atta</span>, the ringleader of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as a terrorist over a year before the attacks occurred. Coulter wrote:

Able Danger wasn't "historically significant" in the sense that the intelligence gathered by this operation did not stop the 9/11 attack. It could not have prevented the attack, because the information produced by Able Danger was destroyed by the Clinton administration.7

Coulter's source for this claim was a February 16 Washington Times article, titled: "Probe fails to find pre-9/11 Atta data." The article, however, merely noted that Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), one of the congressional Republicans baselessly claiming that Able Danger had identified Atta, "has said the Clinton administration destroyed Able Danger documents, shut down the program and prevented intelligence officers from sharing the information with the FBI." Coulter's endnote omitted her true source, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>citing only The Washington Times in support of her assertion that the Clinton administration destroyed Able Danger information. In fact, The Washington Times simply reported the unsubstantiated claim by a Republican member of Congress that the Clinton administration destroyed the data.</span></div></div>

And here, in moonbat logic, Coulter is wrong because they don't like the source that she used.

Meanwhile, her detractors have bleated for 11 years about <span style='font-size: 14pt'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> received a daily briefing that Osama wanted to attack the US again ... as if that would surprise a retarded amoeba ... as proof of treason.

How incredibly lame is this?

LWW
06-26-2011, 03:13 PM
Example #5, from the link, that the tools accept blindly:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">5. On Page 132, Coulter cited the September 30, 2003, edition (subscription required) of Roll Call's "Heard on the Hill" in attacking Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's (D-MA) military service:

After [former Rep.] Tom DeLay [R-TX] joked to a Republican audience, "I certainly don't want to see Teddy Kennedy in a Navy flight suit," [Vietnam war veteran and former Sen. Max] Cleland [D-GA] fired off a nasty letter -- a letter, no less! -- to DeLay saying, "This country deserves more patriots like Senator Kennedy, not more chickenhawks [sic] like you who never served."

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Most Democrats shy away from citing Kennedy's "military service" with such bravado. The "military service" at issue consisted of Kennedy's spending two years in NATO's Paris office after he was expelled from Harvard for paying another student to take his Spanish exam.</span>39

Coulter's endnote simply read: "Ed Henry, 'Heard on the Hill,' Roll Call, September 30, 2003." That Roll Call article, "The Importance of Being Earnest," by Henry, then a Roll Call senior editor and columnist who is now CNN's White House correspondent, did indeed address the back-and-forth between DeLay and Cleland, but at no point in the story were the details of Kennedy's military service or college career mentioned, as Coulter's citation indicated.</div></div>

And here, in moonbat logic, Coulter is wrong, not because she was wrong about Teddy's military service and Harvard expulsion ... but she's "WRONG" because it wasn't contained in the footnote about the back and forth debate ... which. oddly enough, she never claimed that it was.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In May 1951, anxious about maintaining his eligibility for athletics for the next year,[1] he had a friend who was knowledgeable on the subject take his Spanish language examination for him.[9] The two were quickly caught and expelled for cheating ...

Kennedy enlisted in the United States Army in June 1951 (signing up for an optional four-year term, which was shortened to the minimum two years after his father intervened).[9] Following basic training at Fort Dix, he requested assignment to Fort Holabird for Army Intelligence training, but was dropped after a few weeks without explanation.[9] He went to Camp Gordon for training in the Military Police Corps.[9] In June 1952, Kennedy was assigned to the honor guard at SHAPE headquarters in Paris.[1][9] His father's political connections ensured he was not deployed to the ongoing Korean War.[1][10] While stationed in Europe he travelled extensively on weekends and climbed the Matterhorn.[11] He was discharged in March 1953 as a private first class. </div></div>

With a former ambassador and congressman as a father and a US senator and war hero as a brother, Teddy was able to soar in rank to PFC in only 2 years.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_kennedy)


I could go on, but as any sane reader can tell by now ... the US Pravda branch at Media Matters has nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nein, nada.

Also, as is by now quite clear, this will mean nothing to the dembots.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, thanks saved me the time.

Fact is, even her publisher is making corrections in some respects for future editions like the paperback edition. </div></div>

Documented by?

What's that?

Your imagination.

Imagine that. </div></div>

We've been through this before. I don't make things up.

The last time you tried to say I was delusional I shoved the Prop 13 author's website history in your face and it said what I said had been the history, although you also said it was purely my imagination. Actually, you STILL said it was my imagination after I showed you the text and the link, because you are incorrigible.

What I say is easily discovered. Because even if Ann Coulter is also incorrigible, like yourself, her PUBLISHER understands keeping known inaccuracies in the text hurts his reputation, and I imagine he understands libel law as well.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 05:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you even read the MM link?

Of course you didn't.

You licked the spoon clean of the salacious lie in the heading and never bothered to read that their "REBUTTAL" was nothing more than word parsing the very finest of minutiae in a lame attempt to deny the obvious.

What a tool you truly are. </div></div>

This is a listing of ONE of her book's errors in endnoting.

She has perhaps a dozen, all with the same problems.

She pretends a scholarly approach, but even her fans should admit she is a polemicist, and in her advocacy role, she bends and trims facts from her own alleged sources that make the references constructively false.

LWW
06-27-2011, 03:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, thanks saved me the time.

Fact is, even her publisher is making corrections in some respects for future editions like the paperback edition. </div></div>

Documented by?

What's that?

Your imagination.

Imagine that. </div></div>

We've been through this before. I don't make things up. </div></div>

Yes, we have.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I regret the error, and as always appreciate the correction, although of course, it was not intended to be a factual statement (TM).</div></div>

Precious, simply precious.

LWW
06-27-2011, 03:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you even read the MM link?

Of course you didn't.

You licked the spoon clean of the salacious lie in the heading and never bothered to read that their "REBUTTAL" was nothing more than word parsing the very finest of minutiae in a lame attempt to deny the obvious.

What a tool you truly are. </div></div>

This is a listing of ONE of her book's errors in endnoting.
</div></div>

And they were spoon fed jibba jabba that an open minded finch could see through as phony.

LWW
06-27-2011, 03:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you even read the MM link?

Of course you didn't.

You licked the spoon clean of the salacious lie in the heading and never bothered to read that their "REBUTTAL" was nothing more than word parsing the very finest of minutiae in a lame attempt to deny the obvious.

What a tool you truly are. </div></div>

This is a listing of ONE of her book's errors in endnoting.

She has perhaps a dozen, all with the same problems.

She pretends a scholarly approach, but even her fans should admit she is a polemicist, and in her advocacy role, she bends and trims facts from her own alleged sources that make the references constructively false.
</div></div>

"GODLESS" contains several hundred endnotes.

For argument's sake, let's assume (solely to humor you and Snoopy for a moment.) that the democratic party organ you use so slavishly and faithfully as a purveyor of party approved "TRUTH" ... the taxpayer subsidized "MEDIA MATTERS" ... has correctly went through the book and found eleven factual errors, even after demonstrating that their "TOP FAVE" were junk reviewing at it's hyper - partisan worst, then logic must conclude that AC has an accuracy rate of well over 90% and the balance is 100% correct.

Even accepting your wholly spoon fed and hyper-partisan POV ... because we both know that none of the cabal would ever bother to actually read her work and judge something on their own ... you are dealing with something far more fact based than any of the left's screeching moonbat authors.

LWW
06-27-2011, 03:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, thanks saved me the time.

Fact is, even her publisher is making corrections in some respects for future editions like the paperback edition. </div></div>

Documented by?

What's that?

Your imagination.

Imagine that. </div></div>

After a search the closest I could find to a source for your fantasy was PMSNBC ... which published the scathing rebuke of AC:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The publisher of “Godless,” the Crown Publishing Group, issued a statement saying it had reviewed the “the allegations of plagiarism” in her book and “found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible.”

“As an experienced author and attorney, Ms. Coulter knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the 19 pages and hundreds of endnotes contained in ‘Godless,”’ Crown’s senior vice president and publisher, Steve Ross, said in the statement. </div></div>

OH MY! (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13803982/ns/today-entertainment/t/syndicator-review-coulter-plagiarism-claims/)

eg8r
06-27-2011, 08:26 AM
I think she does more to hurt Reps than help them.

eg8r

LWW
06-27-2011, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think she does more to hurt Reps than help them.

eg8r </div></div>

That is the impression the leftist hate machine tries desperately to plant in the public thought.

The truth of the matter is the Obamedia says the same things about Boortz ... and Limbaugh ... and Palin ... and anyone who takes anything approaching a conservative line in the media.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 05:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think she does more to hurt Reps than help them.

eg8r </div></div>

That is the impression the leftist hate machine tries desperately to plant in the public thought.

The truth of the matter is the Obamedia says the same things about Boortz ... and Limbaugh ... and Palin ... and anyone who takes anything approaching a conservative line in the media. </div></div>

Ann is over, per the lackluster sales for this and her last book. As her looks have severely faded, and her act grown stale, there is really no upside to the vicious extreme political rhetoric she spews.

Expect more frenzied crass commentary from her as she struggles to be the right's 'it' girl again, but the torch has passed to younger harpies.

LWW
06-27-2011, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think she does more to hurt Reps than help them.

eg8r </div></div>

That is the impression the leftist hate machine tries desperately to plant in the public thought.

The truth of the matter is the Obamedia says the same things about Boortz ... and Limbaugh ... and Palin ... and anyone who takes anything approaching a conservative line in the media. </div></div>

Ann is over, per the lackluster sales for this and her last book. As her looks have severely faded, and her act grown stale, there is really no upside to the vicious extreme political rhetoric she spews.

Expect more frenzied crass commentary from her as she struggles to be the right's 'it' girl again, but the torch has passed to younger harpies. </div></div>

So, now that we have established that she isn't wrong on the data ... your argument si that she's wrong because:

- She's getting older.

- She's not as good looking as she once was.

- Her book isn't selling well.

Let's review this:

1 - We are all getting older.

2 - What does her looks have to do with it? Where is Charlotte to chastise you for your blatant sexist remarks?

3 - Her book came in at #2 on the NYT best seller list.

Next deflection please?

eg8r
06-28-2011, 08:51 AM
I guess it is a good thing I don't listen to the leftist hate machine.

Just wondering what do you think the righty hate machine is out there telling everyone?

eg8r

LWW
06-28-2011, 10:25 AM
Give me an example?

For the most part, conservatives been ran into silence by the attacks reaigned down upon Coulter, Limbaugh, Boortz et al.

Do some research on the leftist mob and it's series of shout downs, faux citizen's arrests, fire bombings and other mob type violence ... and then research similar activities from conservatives.

eg8r
06-28-2011, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Give me an example?
</div></div>So it is your belief there is only a lefty hate machine?

eg8r

LWW
06-28-2011, 01:51 PM
Again, give me an example or a definition.

If you are asking me if their are rightists who hate ... certainly there are.

If you are asking me if there are right wing regimes which slaughter opponents ala Saddam, Hitler, Castro, Pot, Minh, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Ceaucescu, Napoleon, Mussolini, Amin, Omar, Tito, Chavez et al ... then no.

If you are asking me if there are groups on the right which organize shout downs, street riots, bombings, lynchings etcetera ... then no.

Acts of senseless violence when it does occur on the right are from nutjob individuals who are always renounced by the right.

OTOH ... we have PETA, ELF, KKK, SLA, NBPP and others on the right who are organized terroristic groups.

Statists almost always gain and then lock down power by controlling the mob.

LWW
06-28-2011, 02:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess it is a good thing I don't listen to the leftist hate machine.

Just wondering what do you think the righty hate machine is out there telling everyone?

eg8r </div></div>

BTW ... if you want a good example go look DEMONIC up on AMAZON.

Released on June 7 ... by June 8 it had 10 moonbat rants against it, a few of which sounded eerily like a certain member here, from people who swear they hate Coulter.

Yet they expect us to believe that in 24 hours time they ran straight to the bookstore ... took the book home ... read it start to finish ... cross checked several hundred end notes ... found them all to be lies ... and then wrote up to a 1,000 word hate filled rant ... yet somehow never bothered to explain why she was wrong.

Please.

DickLeonard
06-28-2011, 02:15 PM
LWW the only person who doesn't thimk big money doesn't walk both sides of the street must be you.XXXX

LWW
06-28-2011, 02:37 PM
Thanks for proving me wrong by agreeing with me.

Soflasnapper
06-28-2011, 06:19 PM
To be fair to LWW, he cannot see Coulter's distortions because he uses the same tactics, and sees what she does as the truth.

These from a review of her 'Treaon' book (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Misleading quotation and sourcing of claims

Coulter engages in a series of deceptive practices in quoting people and sourcing her claims. Most commonly, she distorts the authorship of articles she's citing. Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine profiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports, feeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include a New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as "According to the Times..." (p. 6); a Washington Post book review by Patricia Aufderheide described as "the Washington Post said..." (p. 97) and "The Washington Post called..." (p. 98); and a New York Times Magazine article by reporter Leslie Gelb cited as "the New York Times reported..." (p. 171). At one point, she cites a single Washington Post magazine article by journalist Orville Schell four separate ways (implying multiple stories to the casual reader), in one case calling it "a two-part, four-billion-column-inch Washington Post story" in which "the Post said..." (p. 92).

Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original source material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually presented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.''

Coulter goes on to denounce the New York Times for putting terms like "evil empire" in quotes, which she claims "expressed contempt for the idea of winning the Cold War." However, the article she cites as proof of the use of quotation marks is actually directly quoting Reagan saying the term. (p. 158) Later, she condemns the Times for its response to Reagan's invasion of Grenada. "The Times rages that Reagan was 'Making the World "Safe" for Hypocrisy,'" she writes, not mentioning that the quote is the headline on an op-ed by a Times columnist, not an editorial. (p. 179)

She also denounces a New York Times obituary of Joel Barr for saying he was "suspected of passing secret information" to the Soviets, writing that "Dozens of Soviet cables had identified Barr as a Soviet spy" as though this information was not provided to Times readers. (p. 53) But the obituary actually states that "John Haynes, the co-author with Harvey Klehr of a forthcoming Soviet history to be published by Yale, said that the intelligence reports show that Mr. Barr and Mr. Sarant 'were among the K.G.B.'s most valuable technical spies'" -- the same experts she cites in the footnote backing up her claim!

And in a passage focused on contemporary politics, Coulter misrepresents a personal attack against her as one on all "people who support ethnic profiling of airline passengers" (p. 261), saying Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, called such people "troglodytes 'crawling on [their] bell[ies] in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho." (brackets hers) In fact, Durbin wrote the following in a letter to a Springfield, Illinois newspaper (notice how Coulter pluralized his wording with brackets to obscure the reference):

I often wonder whether Ann Coulter's political views are just a pose.

Having seen her on television, she is bright, witty and appears to be the product of a good education and good grooming. There is nothing about her which suggests she has spent any time crawling on her belly in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho.

But when she opens her mouth or logs on her computer, Dr. Coulter is transformed into a political creature that could take Pat Buchanan's breath away.

Durbin goes on to denounce her views on ethnic profiling, but to suggest that his crack represents his view of everyone who supports her stance on the issue is patently false.
Utter falsehoods and egregious factual misrepresentations

Coulter makes at least five factual claims that are indisputably false. First, she writes "When the United States made an alliance with mad mullahs in Afghanistan against the USSR, no sensible American would go sign up with the Taliban." (p. 51) However, the Taliban did not form a militia until 1994, several years after the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989) and its subsequent collapse (1991).

Later, she denounces Congressmen Jim McDermott, D-WA, David Bonior, D-MI, and Mike Thompson, D-CA, for their trip to Iraq in late September 2002, asking, "Weren't any Democrats the tiniest bit irritated that members of Congress were meeting with a tyrant as the U.S. prepared to attack him?" (p. 225) The group did not meet with Saddam, who is obviously the tyrant in question, though they did meet with Iraqi officials.

Coulter also offers this supposed quotation from Clinton: "Bill Clinton, the man who deployed the best fighting force on the globe to build urinals in Bosnia, actually said of Muslim terrorists, 'They have good reason to hate us ... after all, we sent the Crusaders to try and conquer them.'" (p. 229) Clinton never said this according to searches of Google and the Nexis news database, nor do any sources repeat this quotation. The only clue to its source is its slight resemblance to a passage in a November 2001 speech at Georgetown University in which Clinton discusses a story from the Crusades and its enduring relevance today in far more nuanced terms. Given that the speech has been widely distorted in the media, it would not be surprising if this is Coulter's supposed source (she provides no footnote for the quote).

In one bizarre case, she misrepresents the reasons for Carter's Nobel Prize, stating that it was awarded "for his masterful negotiation of the 1994 deal [the Agreed Framework with North Korea], though, in candor, he got the prize for North Korea only because the committee couldn't formally award a prize for Bush-bashing, which was the stated reason." (p. 233) But the Nobel committee's award announcement cites the award as recognizing Carter's "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development," of which North Korea was only a part. In the presentation speech at the Nobel ceremony, his work on the North Korea issue was not even mentioned.

Lastly, she claims that Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General under President Johnson, "argued that Iran should be able to 'determine its own fate'" after returning from a meeting with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in 1979. "[D]etermine its own fate" is presented as a direct quote, but it turns out to be a quote from an abstract of a New York Times article, not a quote from Clark. In fact, it is an abstract paraphrase of the reporter's summary of Clark's statement summarizing the views of the Ayatollah! (The quote "determine its own fate" does not appear in any article in the Nexis news database along with Clark's name and Iran.)

In several other cases, Coulter thoroughly twists and misrepresents her source material to support her ideological agenda. Most of these are related to her claims that the media engages in "total suppression" of the religion of Muslim terrorists who kill people. (p. 279) She criticizes the New York Times for a March 5, 1993 headline about the first World Trade Center bombing, which read "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center," saying the Times was "[e]merging as al-Qaeda's leading spokesman in America." (p. 279) However, the first paragraph of the article states that the man was "described by the authorities as an Islamic fundamentalist." In addition, on the same day, the Times ran an 1100 word article titled "Suspect in Bombing Is Linked To Sect With a Violent Voice" detailing how Mohammed A. Salameh "is said by law-enforcement officials to be a follower of a blind Muslim cleric who preaches a violent message of Islamic fundamentalism from a walk-up mosque in Jersey City."

She also condemns the Times for its reporting on an Egyptian immigrant named Hesham Hadayet who went on a shooting rampage at an El Al terminal in Los Angeles. "In the past," she writes, "Hadayet had complained about his neighbors flying a U.S. flag, he had a 'Read the Koran' sticker on his front door, and he had expressed virulent hatred for Jews. The Times reported straight that his motive for the shooting may have been 'some dispute over a fare.'" (p. 279-280) In fact, all three of those facts about Hadayet came from the initial Times story on him, which straightforwardly presented two possible motives for his actions as a hate crime against Jews or a terrorist attack (El Al is the Israeli national airline). The quote "some dispute over a fare" came in a separate story that day based on an interview with Hadayet's uncle, who, the reporter summarized, "said his normally well-mannered nephew was always prickly about being taken for a fool by customers, and so he expected that some dispute over a fare had erupted at the El Al counter." This is clearly not written as though it is the reporter's opinion that it is true. It is pure conjecture and described as such (the uncle "expected" that it was a dispute).

In addition, Coulter denounces coverage of the sniper case, saying "you need a New York Times decoder ring" to find out "John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim. The only clue as to the sniper's religion was the Times's repeated insistence that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the shootings." (p. 281) But on the same day that the suspects' capture was first reported, another "clue" might have been two separate stories that prominently described Muhammad as a Muslim. Two days later, the Times ran an entire story about the role of religion in the shootings, though it framed the issue mostly in psychiatric terms and did not speculate about the potential influence of extremist Islamic beliefs. In all four of these cases, it simply was not clear what the suspects' motives were from the facts available to the reporters writing in the earliest possible moments of the investigation. Would Coulter have them simply presume to know, as she claims to, that the the suspects' actions were driven by their religious beliefs?

And finally, in a similar accusation, Coulter claims the Times "barely mentioned" the release of decrypted Soviet cables (the Venona Project), saying "[i]t might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of 'McCarthyism.'" The Times actually ran a 1000 word story on the declassification of the Venona cables. It did not run on the front page, but neither did the stories in the Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (among others). Among major newspapers, only the Los Angeles Times put the story on its front page.

In short, Ann Coulter has once again revealed herself as one of the most destructive forces in American politics, repeatedly making outrageously irrational arguments and demonstrably false claims. Treason is the culmination of a dismaying trend toward factually misleading and inflammatory books from pundits such as Michael Moore, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (Salon Premium subscription or viewing of ad required for Savage column). These authors may delight partisans and make their publishers rich, but their work impoverishes our political discourse.

Related links:
-Savage with the truth (Ben Fritz, 2/19/03)
-New York Sun suggests treason prosecution for free speech (Brendan Nyhan, 2/7/03)
-The blowhard next door (Ben Fritz and Bryan Keefer, 8/26/02)
-Throwing the book at her (Bryan Keefer, 7/13/02)
-One Moore stupid white man (Ben Fritz, 4/3/02)
-Bully brigade (Brendan Nyhan, 3/4/02)
- Clinton Speaks, Pundits Spin: The Washington Times and the Spread of a Media Myth (Bryan Keefer, 11/19/01)
-"Patriotism" and "Treason": A New Trend in Irresponsible Wartime Rhetoric (Ben Fritz, 10/29/01)
-Ann Coulter: The Jargon Vanguard (Brendan Nyhan, 7/16/01)
-Spinsanity on Ann Coulter </div></div>

Soflasnapper
06-28-2011, 06:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess it is a good thing I don't listen to the leftist hate machine.

Just wondering what do you think the righty hate machine is out there telling everyone?

eg8r </div></div>

To get a taste of the right hate machine's message, read any book by Ann Coulter. Seriously. One woman hate speech machine.

LWW
06-29-2011, 02:23 AM
Let's review:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be fair to LWW, he cannot see Coulter's distortions because he uses the same tactics, and sees what she does as the truth.

These from a review of her 'Treaon' book (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Misleading quotation and sourcing of claims

Coulter engages in a series of deceptive practices in quoting people and sourcing her claims. Most commonly, she distorts the authorship of articles she's citing. Throughout the book, she attributes outside book reviews, magazine profiles and op-eds to media outlets as if they were staff-written news reports, feeding the perception of bias on the part of these institutions. These include a New York Times Week in Review article by historian Richard Gid Powers cited as "According to the Times..." (p. 6); a Washington Post book review by Patricia Aufderheide described as "the Washington Post said..." (p. 97) and "The Washington Post called..." (p. 98); and a New York Times Magazine article by reporter Leslie Gelb cited as "the New York Times reported..." (p. 171). At one point, she cites a single Washington Post magazine article by journalist Orville Schell four separate ways (implying multiple stories to the casual reader), in one case calling it "a two-part, four-billion-column-inch Washington Post story" in which "the Post said..." (p. 92).

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">The author's obvious point ... just because they published what she said they published doesn't in any way mean that they published it?</span></span>

Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original source material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually presented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.''

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Anyone who doubts that this was the media caricature of Reagan is clueless.</span></span>

Coulter goes on to denounce the New York Times for putting terms like "evil empire" in quotes, which she claims "expressed contempt for the idea of winning the Cold War." However, the article she cites as proof of the use of quotation marks is actually directly quoting Reagan saying the term. (p. 158) Later, she condemns the Times for its response to Reagan's invasion of Grenada. "The Times rages that Reagan was 'Making the World "Safe" for Hypocrisy,'" she writes, not mentioning that the quote is the headline on an op-ed by a Times columnist, not an editorial. (p. 179)

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">The author's obvious point ... just because they published what she said they published doesn't in any way mean that they published it?</span></span>

She also denounces a New York Times obituary of Joel Barr for saying he was "suspected of passing secret information" to the Soviets, writing that "Dozens of Soviet cables had identified Barr as a Soviet spy" as though this information was not provided to Times readers. (p. 53) But the obituary actually states that "John Haynes, the co-author with Harvey Klehr of a forthcoming Soviet history to be published by Yale, said that the intelligence reports show that Mr. Barr and Mr. Sarant 'were among the K.G.B.'s most valuable technical spies'" -- the same experts she cites in the footnote backing up her claim!

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">You have a little something there, although it seems the NYT did offer it as someone accusing them as opposed to fact, as I remember he was outed in the Venona cables.</span></span>

And in a passage focused on contemporary politics, Coulter misrepresents a personal attack against her as one on all "people who support ethnic profiling of airline passengers" (p. 261), saying Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, called such people "troglodytes 'crawling on [their] bell[ies] in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho." (brackets hers) In fact, Durbin wrote the following in a letter to a Springfield, Illinois newspaper (notice how Coulter pluralized his wording with brackets to obscure the reference):

I often wonder whether Ann Coulter's political views are just a pose.

Having seen her on television, she is bright, witty and appears to be the product of a good education and good grooming. There is nothing about her which suggests she has spent any time crawling on her belly in the mud at a right-wing militia training camp in Idaho.

But when she opens her mouth or logs on her computer, Dr. Coulter is transformed into a political creature that could take Pat Buchanan's breath away.

Durbin goes on to denounce her views on ethnic profiling, but to suggest that his crack represents his view of everyone who supports her stance on the issue is patently false.
Utter falsehoods and egregious factual misrepresentations

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Oh please ... if the attack isn't personal, then if you assume this of one person holding that belief you certainly must assume it of everyone else holding the same beliefe. Enough with the word parsing.</span></span>

Coulter makes at least five factual claims that are indisputably false. First, she writes "When the United States made an alliance with mad mullahs in Afghanistan against the USSR, no sensible American would go sign up with the Taliban." (p. 51) However, the Taliban did not form a militia until 1994, several years after the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989) and its subsequent collapse (1991).

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">So ... she was wrong because she was right? Did you even read this stuff?</span></span>

Later, she denounces Congressmen Jim McDermott, D-WA, David Bonior, D-MI, and Mike Thompson, D-CA, for their trip to Iraq in late September 2002, asking, "Weren't any Democrats the tiniest bit irritated that members of Congress were meeting with a tyrant as the U.S. prepared to attack him?" (p. 225) The group did not meet with Saddam, who is obviously the tyrant in question, though they did meet with Iraqi officials.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">OMFG! Even the HuffPost acknowledges that Saddam's intelligence force paid for the trip of these 3 seditionists. Beyong that, Saddam's Iraq was a thugocracy of the first degree ... if you met with Iraqi intelligence officials you were meeting de facto with Saddam.</span></span>

Coulter also offers this supposed quotation from Clinton: "Bill Clinton, the man who deployed the best fighting force on the globe to build urinals in Bosnia, actually said of Muslim terrorists, 'They have good reason to hate us ... after all, we sent the Crusaders to try and conquer them.'" (p. 229) Clinton never said this according to searches of Google and the Nexis news database, nor do any sources repeat this quotation. The only clue to its source is its slight resemblance to a passage in a November 2001 speech at Georgetown University in which Clinton discusses a story from the Crusades and its enduring relevance today in far more nuanced terms. Given that the speech has been widely distorted in the media, it would not be surprising if this is Coulter's supposed source (she provides no footnote for the quote).

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">I wonder why the author didn't include the original "DISTORTED" quote?</span></span>

In one bizarre case, she misrepresents the reasons for Carter's Nobel Prize, stating that it was awarded "for his masterful negotiation of the 1994 deal [the Agreed Framework with North Korea], though, in candor, he got the prize for North Korea only because the committee couldn't formally award a prize for Bush-bashing, which was the stated reason." (p. 233) But the Nobel committee's award announcement cites the award as recognizing Carter's "decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development," of which North Korea was only a part. In the presentation speech at the Nobel ceremony, his work on the North Korea issue was not even mentioned.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Has anyone else noticed that each claim is getting lamer and lamer.</span></span>

Lastly, she claims that Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General under President Johnson, "argued that Iran should be able to 'determine its own fate'" after returning from a meeting with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in 1979. "[D]etermine its own fate" is presented as a direct quote, but it turns out to be a quote from an abstract of a New York Times article, not a quote from Clark. In fact, it is an abstract paraphrase of the reporter's summary of Clark's statement summarizing the views of the Ayatollah! (The quote "determine its own fate" does not appear in any article in the Nexis news database along with Clark's name and Iran.)

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">And this is blatant deceit. Using single quotation marks within a quote signifies nesting a quote, not what she did. Using single quotation marks stand alone designates either a title ... such as 'GONE WITH THE WIND' ... or a summary of the person(s) point.</span></span>

In several other cases, Coulter thoroughly twists and misrepresents her source material to support her ideological agenda. Most of these are related to her claims that the media engages in "total suppression" of the religion of Muslim terrorists who kill people. (p. 279) She criticizes the New York Times for a March 5, 1993 headline about the first World Trade Center bombing, which read "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center," saying the Times was "[e]merging as al-Qaeda's leading spokesman in America." (p. 279) However, the first paragraph of the article states that the man was "described by the authorities as an Islamic fundamentalist." <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Which proves the point. Nobody reads an entire newspaper, most read headlines and then selected article. By evading the truth in the headline, it is left in the minds of the majority that it wasn't a terrorist but just some guy from Jersey City.</span></span> In addition, on the same day, the Times ran an 1100 word article titled "Suspect in Bombing Is Linked To Sect With a Violent Voice" detailing how Mohammed A. Salameh "is said by law-enforcement officials to be a follower of a blind Muslim cleric who preaches a violent message of Islamic fundamentalism from a walk-up mosque in Jersey City." <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Irrelevant to the earlier piece.</span></span>

She also condemns the Times for its reporting on an Egyptian immigrant named Hesham Hadayet who went on a shooting rampage at an El Al terminal in Los Angeles. "In the past," she writes, "Hadayet had complained about his neighbors flying a U.S. flag, he had a 'Read the Koran' sticker on his front door, and he had expressed virulent hatred for Jews. The Times reported straight that his motive for the shooting may have been 'some dispute over a fare.'" (p. 279-280) In fact, all three of those facts about Hadayet came from the initial Times story on him, which straightforwardly presented two possible motives for his actions as a hate crime against Jews or a terrorist attack (El Al is the Israeli national airline). The quote "some dispute over a fare" came in a separate story that day based on an interview with Hadayet's uncle, who, the reporter summarized, "said his normally well-mannered nephew was always prickly about being taken for a fool by customers, and so he expected that some dispute over a fare had erupted at the El Al counter." This is clearly not written as though it is the reporter's opinion that it is true. It is pure conjecture and described as such (the uncle "expected" that it was a dispute). <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">So, again, just because they published it doesn't mean they published it?</span></span>

In addition, Coulter denounces coverage of the sniper case, saying "you need a New York Times decoder ring" to find out "John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim. The only clue as to the sniper's religion was the Times's repeated insistence that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the shootings." (p. 281) But on the same day that the suspects' capture was first reported, another "clue" might have been two separate stories that prominently described Muhammad as a Muslim. Two days later, the Times ran an entire story about the role of religion in the shootings, though it framed the issue mostly in psychiatric terms and did not speculate about the potential influence of extremist Islamic beliefs. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">The author is getting desperate. I wonder which article was on page 1 and which was buried?</span></span>In all four of these cases, it simply was not clear what the suspects' motives were from the facts available to the reporters writing in the earliest possible moments of the investigation. Would Coulter have them simply presume to know, as she claims to, that the the suspects' actions were driven by their religious beliefs? <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">If the leftist media hadn't presumed repeatedly to know the motivation of every crime they could even remotely ... such as Loughner ... attach to a conservative, this point would have some traction.</span></span>

And finally, in a similar accusation, Coulter claims the Times "barely mentioned" the release of decrypted Soviet cables (the Venona Project), saying "[i]t might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of 'McCarthyism.'" The Times actually ran a 1000 word story on the declassification of the Venona cables. It did not run on the front page, but neither did the stories in the Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (among others). Among major newspapers, only the Los Angeles Times put the story on its front page. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">So ... they buried the story no deeper than other leftist media sources? WOW! Just WOW! That after running articles on page 1 for decades about the innocence of accused Soviet spies.</span></span>

In short, Ann Coulter has once again revealed herself as one of the most destructive forces in American politics, repeatedly making outrageously irrational arguments and demonstrably false claims. Treason is the culmination of a dismaying trend toward factually misleading and inflammatory books from pundits such as Michael Moore, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (Salon Premium subscription or viewing of ad required for Savage column). These authors may delight partisans and make their publishers rich, but their work impoverishes our political discourse.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">In short, this entire piece was word parsed spoon fed hyper - partisan gibberish intended to keep the mob fired up ... and nothing more.</span></span></div></div> </div></div>

That was funny.

LWW
06-29-2011, 02:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess it is a good thing I don't listen to the leftist hate machine.

Just wondering what do you think the righty hate machine is out there telling everyone?

eg8r </div></div>

To get a taste of the right hate machine's message, read any book by Ann Coulter. Seriously. One woman hate speech machine. </div></div>

And you have read exactly how many?

Tell us ... how many leftist speakers has AC shouted down? How many has she pied?

How many leftist speakers have to hire security to protect them from death threats made by AC?

Please ... educate us on this?

eg8r
06-29-2011, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell us ... how many leftist speakers has AC shouted down? </div></div>Is "shouting down" your only criteria? I consider her quite a serious bully every time she is on the TV. She will not allow others to speak and quickly interupts all the time, all the while getting pissy when it happens to her. Hannity is even worse.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-29-2011, 01:46 PM
Let's review how LWW and Ann think alike.

When the NY Times quotes a REAGAN OFFICIAL in an article, when HE references the Reagan as a cowboy trope and worries that will be in play because of a specific incident, that is EXACTLY the same, and PROVES, the NY TIMES makes this criticism directly themselves, and that is a great footnote that proves that point, because after all, the NY Times and others really did feel that way.

Perhaps it is true, and more likely than not, that liberals, those further to the left, and the NY Times somewhere in that mix, did hold that view. Hell, I held that view. Why couldn't Coulter then cite THEM saying it, rather than reporting a Reagan official said it? We know she uses Nexis. Perhaps she used this citation because she couldn't find such a citation? Or, alternatively, they are plentiful, and she's too intellectually lazy or corrupt to find a real citation?

Who knows, but it's NOT AN EXAMPLE OF LYING OR DISTORTING A QUOTE (even though it is exactly that in the real world), because they REALLY DO THINK IT anyway, according to LWW and I guess Coulter herself.

The point isn't what they think but how it affects their coverage and the paper's own editorial board's pieces, etc.

Think of some conservative position George Will might take in his regularly run column in the WaPost. Is it correct to characterize that as 'even the WaPost says...,' or would trying to get away with that claim earn a warranted smackdown of 'that was Geo. Will, idiot, not the WaPost!'

LWW doesn't see the difference, and to repeat what I said, he cannot see Coulter's distortions because he uses the same tactics, and sees what she does as truth.

As when he defended the truth and accuracy of Coulter saying liberals would teach anal sex and fisting to kindegartners (sp?), because she linked to that going on in certain quarters of education relating to adults. Yeah, that's exactly the same and proves the point, NOT!

She is not a serious person making serious arguments, but a vapid liar making propaganda screeds. She spent a book showing why Clinton deserved to be impeached by referring to judicial precedents of impeachment, even though they are under a far different standard (life tenure during 'good behavior') compared to a strictly time-delimited term or terms, excepting high crimes and misdemeanors. She conflates impeachments for reason of lack of 'good behavior' to the 'high crimes' standard, and as an alleged Constitutional lawyer/authority, pretends not to understand the distinction.

Such a person is untrustworthy to make correct and honest arguments.

LWW
06-29-2011, 03:40 PM
You are making my point better than I ever could.

Soflasnapper
06-29-2011, 04:29 PM
You are making my point better than I ever could.

You have a special way with your special pleading that is as Jesuit-like as I've seen.

When Coulter says at a certain point of time no Islam adherent would have thought of going to join the Taliban (but then it's pointed out that they didn't exist then, created many years later), you say that wasn't an error, but the truth.

No, she had no idea what she was talking about, did make that error, and to say she didn't is hilarious, although incompetent, apologetics.

LWW
06-29-2011, 05:42 PM
You really are as much a nit as Snoopy.

The fact is she never said the Taliban existed in 1979 ... what she said was that no sensible American would have joined them then.

Now, you can take the argument that they couldn't have joined because they didn't yet exist, but ... as usual ... you would again be wrong.

They were not yet operating under the name "TALIBAN" but Mullah Mohammed Omar and his boys were very much active fighting the Soviets in 1979.

Your argument is like saying the Atlanta Braves franchise didn't exist in 1965 because they were operating under the name of the Milwaukee Braves.

Now, what was your point?