Ann Coulter' Slander -Liberal Lies About the American Right
R W B
If Democrats were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments.
This is how six year olds argue. They call everything stupid. The
left's primary argument is the reaction of a helpless child deprived
of the ability to mount logical counter arguments.
The "you're stupid" riposte is part of the larger liberal tactic of
refusing to engage in ideas.
Indeed almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage
of small children. Thus for example, there is the popular tactic of
repeating some meaningless phrase a billion times: "Arms for hostages,
arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, it's just
about sex, it's just about sex, dumb, dumb, dumb, money in politics,
money in politics, money in politics, Enron, Enron, Enron!"
GW Bush, with degrees from Yale and Harvard, is ridiculed for his
stupidity by Hollywood starlets whose course of study is limited to
what they learned from bald, sweaty little men on casting couches.
From Ann Coulter's 'Slander - Liberal Lies About the American Right'.
A fun book to read...unless you're a liberal.
JJM1954
>A fun book to read...unless you're a liberal.
Or you've got a functioning brain.
Starbuck
R W B "cut and pasted" some scumbags propaganda:
what's the matter rwb can't come up with your own material?
>
> If Democrats were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
> dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments.
I can do that, let's see if the ditto people can do the same, LOL
> This is how six year olds argue. They call everything stupid. The
> left's primary argument is the reaction of a helpless child deprived
> of the ability to mount logical counter arguments.
look at the ANN COULTER thread and tell me who does the majority of
one-line reply's
> The "you're stupid" riposte is part of the larger liberal tactic of
> refusing to engage in ideas.
the "cut and paste" riposte is part of the larger neocon tactic of using
someone else's argument
> Indeed almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage
> of small children. Thus for example, there is the popular tactic of
> repeating some meaningless phrase a billion times: "Arms for hostages,
> arms for hostages, arms for hostages,
sure this is the simplified statement, the distillation of the crime.
Does repeating this make it less of a crime? If you want detail it's
there, just look for it.
> it's just about sex, it's just
> about sex, it's just about sex,
what else was it about? Oh yeah, lying about it in a perjury trap. 70
million and that's all they got? No felony convictions? Say it isn't
so.
>dumb, dumb, dumb, money in politics,
> money in politics, money in politics,
well geez, that's ALL it is
Enron, Enron, Enron!"
so that means enron isn't a crime now? Condensing a point into it's
simplest form doesn't make it any less viable.
> GW Bush, with degrees from Yale and Harvard, is ridiculed for his
> stupidity by Hollywood starlets
dumbya barely got through school, anybody can tell you rich people can
buy their kids through these schools. And dumbya did graduate from
harvard business school, that's why EVERY BUSINESS (except the rangers)
he was involved with FAILED. And the rangers survived by corporate
welfare or he'd have ruined them also.
> whose course of study is limited to
> what they learned from bald, sweaty little men on casting couches.
coulter's course of study is learned from horned sweaty people from the
dark side, I'm sure the frau is well read on chief propagandist
Goebbels.
++++++++++++++++++
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals,
the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's
yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
earth is a giant space ship, coulter is proposing we "rape" the life
support system
King Pineapple
news:3D3C7A7C...@911.com...
>
>
> R W B "cut and pasted" some scumbags propaganda:
LOL. Thanks for proving Ann's point, Zippy.
"Bush may be a moron of sorts, but he is not stupid"
-DNC Gasbag Eric Alterman
Hawkeye
R W B wrote:
> If Democrats were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
> dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments.
The same could be said of Republicans.
>
>
> This is how six year olds argue.
So it's wrong to call your opposition "stupid", but it's ok to compare them to six year-olds? I thought
name calling was bad?
> They call everything stupid. The
> left's primary argument is the reaction of a helpless child deprived
> of the ability to mount logical counter arguments.
More name calling Ann? Anybody who disagrees with you is now a "helpless child"?
>
>
> The "you're stupid" riposte is part of the larger liberal tactic of
> refusing to engage in ideas.
The only ideas I see from AC are "Democrats bad, Republicans good".
Politics isn't a football game, AC.
>
>
> Indeed almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage
> of small children.
Ooooh, now they're impotent too?
>
>
> From Ann Coulter's 'Slander - Liberal Lies About the American Right'.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400046610/qid=1027369087/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-0097924-8836869
>
> A fun book to read...unless you're a liberal.
It made me laugh a few times.
--
Hawkeye
"The entire aim of practical politics is to keep the populace terrified - and thus, clamorous to be led to
safety - by menacing them with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" - HL Mencken.
The Pervert
>
> what's the matter rwb can't come up with your own material?
> >
> > If Democrats were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
> > dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments.
>
> I can do that, let's see if the ditto people can do the same, LOL
>
> > This is how six year olds argue. They call everything stupid. The
> > left's primary argument is the reaction of a helpless child deprived
> > of the ability to mount logical counter arguments.
>
> look at the ANN COULTER thread and tell me who does the majority of
> one-line reply's
> > The "you're stupid" riposte is part of the larger liberal tactic of
> > refusing to engage in ideas.
> the "cut and paste" riposte is part of the larger neocon tactic of using
> someone else's argument
> > Indeed almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage
> > of small children. Thus for example, there is the popular tactic of
> > repeating some meaningless phrase a billion times: "Arms for hostages,
> > arms for hostages, arms for hostages,
> sure this is the simplified statement, the distillation of the crime.
> Does repeating this make it less of a crime? If you want detail it's
> there, just look for it.
Withou solid evidence, it makes it no crime at all. If you want to bring an
action againt those you consider responsible, I encourage you to produce
verifiable evidence and go forward with it. If you have such solid
evidence, it is your duty to persue it.
Do you have solid, verifiable evidence? Any? I'm not saying that evidence
does or does not exist. What I am saying is that the reality is that you're
just shooting off your mouth because you know you cannot be held accountable
for your rantings and ravings, and nobody really takes you seriously anyway.
> > it's just about sex, it's just
> > about sex, it's just about sex,
> what else was it about? Oh yeah, lying about it in a perjury trap. 70
> million and that's all they got? No felony convictions? Say it isn't
> so.
Perjury is a fairly significant issue. Obstruction of Justice is a
significant issue. Maybe not to you, and maybe not to some Democrats, but
some people of both major parties do not consider them trivial. I am one of
those.
> > GW Bush, with degrees from Yale and Harvard, is ridiculed for his
> > stupidity by Hollywood starlets
Coulter has a point with that one.
> dumbya barely got through school, anybody can tell you rich people can
> buy their kids through these schools. And dumbya did graduate from
> harvard business school, that's why EVERY BUSINESS (except the rangers)
> he was involved with FAILED. And the rangers survived by corporate
> welfare or he'd have ruined them also.
Would you care to explain why Mr. Gore flunked out of graduate school even
though his family was affluent? Are you suggesting that he wasn't smart
enough to buy his way through? I understand that his grades in his
undergrad work were barely passing and never once exceeded those of Mr.
Bush. Question is, are you suggesting that Mr. Gore wasn't smart enough to
buy his way through grad school as you claim (without any basis in fact nor
evidence of any kind) Mr. Bush did?
Another question. Just how stupid do you think people here are?
Statistically Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats, but
aren't you insulting the intelligence of even Democrats with this silly
nonsense?
And since when are Harvard and Yale bastions of conservative education that
just give degrees away? Should we conclude that JFK graduated from Harvard
simply becasue his family was rich?
> > whose course of study is limited to
> > what they learned from bald, sweaty little men on casting couches.
Being involved in the entertainment industry, I'd quarrel with this one.
But that's only because I know what I'm talking about.
> coulter's course of study is learned from horned sweaty people from the
> dark side, I'm sure the frau is well read on chief propagandist
> Goebbels.
And you only looked at the pictures?
Now, I have successfully answered your question above, to wit:
> > If Democrats were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
> > dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments.
>
> I can do that, let's see if the ditto people can do the same, LOL
Then again, I'm not a ditto person. I am a free thinker.
Jerry Watson
"The Pervert" <perv...@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SE0%8.3466$uh7.819@sccrnsc03...
Perjury is a deliberate lie about a materal point in a court case. Clinton's
lie about never getting a hummer from Monica was not a material point in the
Paula Jones case. It was a lie, but not perjury. Kind of like when Ronnie
Raygun sent his minions before the Congress with orders to lie to the
Congress.
> Obstruction of Justice is a
> significant issue. Maybe not to you, and maybe not to some Democrats, but
> some people of both major parties do not consider them trivial. I am one
of
> those.
There was no case for Obstruction of Justice either if Iran-Contra or 41's
pardon of everyone in sight was not Obstruction of Justice.
jdw
AD
Jerry Watson wrote:
Sure.... getting a blowjob was more important to you far right cretians than the
above......Thanks for proving the following beyond any reasonable doubt-
"while it's true that not all conservatives are stupid, it is also true that
most stupid people are conservative"
>
>
> jdw
Inspector Clouseau
Several felony convictions, only not of the Clintons.
>> Perjury is a fairly significant issue.
>
>Perjury is a deliberate lie about a materal point in a court case.
Hardly relevant, since once you are under oath you still have to tell the truth
whether you think the question is material or not --- as Mr. Clinton found out.
Clinton's
>lie about never getting a hummer from Monica was not a material point in the
>Paula Jones case. It was a lie, but not perjury. Kind of like when Ronnie
>Raygun sent his minions before the Congress with orders to lie to the
>Congress.
>
I'm always entertained to read such nonsense, which basically says that IN YOUR
view, the law distinguishes from "important" lying while under oath and
"immaterial" lying under oath.
BZZZTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The judge in the Jones case knew the law, and she cited Clinton for contempt
for giving "false and misleading" testimony EVEN THO she threw out the case
itself.
SHE knows the law, and you don't. Ditto with the Arkansas bar and the US
Supremes.
The part about "perjury" is a red herring. You can't give false testimony when
you are under oath, whether you (or the judge) decides it is material, relevant
or admissible.
>> Obstruction of Justice is a
>> significant issue. Maybe not to you, and maybe not to some Democrats, but
>> some people of both major parties do not consider them trivial. I am one
>of
>> those.
>
>There was no case for Obstruction of Justice either if Iran-Contra or 41's
>pardon of everyone in sight was not Obstruction of Justice.
You would do well not to consider practicing law, if you think loose analogies
to entirely different facts situations has any value in bolstering your
position on the matter at hand. Fact: no one was cited for contempt in those
other situations, so they are not "on point".
Your idiosyncratic views regarding what YOU think is important or unimportant
lying has no bearings on the matter. Courts and judges decide such matters,
and they have done so.
Unknown
>Sure.... getting a blowjob was more important to you far right
>cretians
[sic]
>than the above......Thanks for proving the following beyond any
>reasonable doubt-
Well, it was important enough for Clinton to bomb a Sudanese aspirin
factory to throw off his pursuers...
--
Jafo
Unknown
<drivel snipped to bring focus>
>coulter's course of study is learned from horned sweaty people
>from the dark side, I'm sure the frau is well read on chief
>propagandist Goebbels.
Heh. Had to happen sooner or later.
Godwin's Law invoked.
--
Jafo
The Pervert
"AD" <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3D3CA422...@bellsouth.net...
And it was only $44 million. Please advise whenever you accidnetly get any
facts straight. I, for one, will be anxiously waiting for that day.
Really. I will.
> > Perjury is a deliberate lie about a materal point in a court case.
Clinton's
> > lie about never getting a hummer from Monica was not a material point in
the
> > Paula Jones case. It was a lie, but not perjury. Kind of like when
Ronnie
> > Raygun sent his minions before the Congress with orders to lie to the
> > Congress.
That may be true. I don't know. I'll have to research that. You seem to
acknowlege (and excuse) a lie under oath. Sad.
Is there evidence that Mr. Reagan actually ordered his subordiantes to lie
under oath to Congress? Or is that just another rumor that keeps being
invented and re-invented? My sense is that it's fantasy, but I'd be open to
being proven wrong. Considering the anti-Reagan obsession extant in certain
circles of the Congress, it surprizes me that Artcles of Impeachemnt were
never voted nor even considered for that allaged crime. I can only believe
that it never happened.
> >
> > > Obstruction of Justice is a significant issue. Maybe not to
> > > you, and maybe not to some Democrats, but some people
> > > of both major parties do not consider them trivial. I am one
> > > of those.
> > There was no case for Obstruction of Justice either if Iran-Contra or
41's
> > pardon of everyone in sight was not Obstruction of Justice.
And those allegations have been substantiated by... whom? I am not denying
that you feel that way, but I don't recall a bit of credible evidence, nor
do I recall any credible charges to that effect. Certainly there were
political tantrums, but there are political tantrums about damn near
everything from both sides of the aisle.
Would you like to talk about the Clinton pardons? No, I didn't think so.
They are also not the issue... which you insist on running away from. Why
is that?
> Sure.... getting a blowjob was more important to you far right cretians
than the
> above......Thanks for proving the following beyond any reasonable doubt-
Getting a blowjob was never the issue. House Republicans often said that
his personal conduct was none of their business. That was between Mr.
Clinton, his family, and those involved. But it's fascinating to see the
usual ethically challenged types bring it up time and time again.
Fascinating. Kinda shows to what lengths some will go to avoid the real
issue and real responsibility. And a sad commentary to boot.
Uh... you mentioned something about being a cretin?
> "while it's true that not all conservatives are stupid, it is also true
that
> most stupid people are conservative"
Then why, pray tell, are Republiocans statistically better eduicated than
Democrats? Another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? That's it. I'll retract
the question.
And why do most rad libs have to fight with labels rather than reason if
you're so damned (allegedly) smart?
ralph
Republican stroke book.
--
Correction: In the thread 'Canada Faces Disruption of Edible Tuber
Supply', I recently posted
'2.5 million Canadians live in Toronto, on taro root alone'.
This should have read
'2.5 million Canadians live in Toronto, Ontario, alone'.
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Neal Atkins
wrote:
>> Perjury is a fairly significant issue.
>
>Perjury is a deliberate lie about a materal point in a court case. Clinton's
>lie about never getting a hummer from Monica was not a material point in the
>Paula Jones case. It was a lie, but not perjury. Kind of like when Ronnie
>Raygun sent his minions before the Congress with orders to lie to the
>Congress.
Damm! I guess you better tell the FEDERAL JUDGE she was "wrong".
April 12, 1999
Web posted at: 7:24 p.m. EDT (2324 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 12) -- U.S. District Judge Susan Webber
Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday
for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify
truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if
any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he
had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false
and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual
relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the
judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition.
Wright also ordered Clinton to pay Jones "any reasonable expenses
including attorneys' fees caused by his willful failure to obey this
court's discovery orders," directing Jones' lawyers to submit an
accounting of their expenses and fees within 20 days.
She also ruled Clinton must reimburse to the court $1,202 for the
judge's travel expenses. Wright traveled to Washington at Clinton's
request to preside over what she now calls "his tainted deposition."
"The court takes no pleasure whatsoever in holding this nation's
president in contempt of court," the 32-page opinion read.
Referring to the professional rule that states it is misconduct for a
lawyer to engage in conduct involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation," Wright also referred matter to the Arkansas
Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct to review Clinton's
action and impose any disciplinary action it thinks is appropriate,
including possible disbarment as a lawyer.
Julian D.
Recognized as such and noted.
JD
"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering. To those . . .
who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is
this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity
and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain
silent in the face of evil."
-- John Ashcroft -
Testifying before congress defending military tribunals and upholding the
Constitution of the United States of America
"Critics of the war on terrorism don’t seem to understand: someone is trying to kill them."
-Jonathan Alter
NEWSWEEK
Palestinian Children's School Is In Session!!!
http://www.serve.com/lordgovernor/children/
On Islamic extremists: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
-- Ann Coulter, National Review Online, September 2001
"100% of the successful terrorist attacks on
commercial airlines for 20 years have been committed
by Arabs. When there is a 100% chance, it ceases to
be a profile. It's called a 'description of the
suspect.'" - Ann Coulter
Julian D.
wrote:
Does "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation," mean or includes 'lying'?
Neal Atkins
wrote:
>>Referring to the professional rule that states it is misconduct for a
>>lawyer to engage in conduct involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
>>misrepresentation," Wright also referred matter to the Arkansas
>>Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct to review Clinton's
>>action and impose any disciplinary action it thinks is appropriate,
>>including possible disbarment as a lawyer.
>>
>
>Does "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
>misrepresentation," mean or includes 'lying'?
Why yes, now that you mention it, it may very well include "lying".
And that "lying" could include "lying under oath". Why that is the
very charge that got X president Klintoon's lawyer license suspended
by his cronies in Arkansas.
Riggs
If Ann Coulter were a singer, she'd be Ethel Merman. Even her photos are
blunt and loud. In the cover shot of Coulter's book, Slander: Liberal Lies
About the American Right , she displays the most chilling stare this side
of Honey Bunny in "Pulp Fiction."
But despite the vast, left-wing conspiracy working against her, Coulter has
appeared on every show this side of "Meet the Osbournes" to plug the book.
Slander is No. 1 on the Publishers Weekly list, No. 1 on the New York Times
list, No. 3 on amazon.com and No. 1 in the hearts of liberal-bashing
Americans from coast to coast.
Seems like a good time to point out just a few of the hateful
proclamations, misleading assertions and incorrect statements in the book.
On p. 4, Coulter establishes her tone--and her propensity for twisting
quotes like Twizzler sticks to suit her needs--when she writes: "The
infernal flag-waving after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of their gourds.
For the left, 'flag-waving' is an epithet. Liberals variously call the flag
a 'joke,' 'very, very dumb,' and--most cutting--'not cosmopolitan.' ''
The "joke" quote is attributed to director Robert Altman, who was primarily
criticizing the Bush administration. Also, Altman was talking not about
genuine displays of patriotism, but the commercialized omnipresence of the
flag. As he later told People magazine, "I don't think [the American flag]
should be on brassieres."
Hmmm. Sounds likes an opinion Coulter would applaud.
As for the "very, very dumb" remark, the article Coulter cites is a New
York Times piece about a controversy in Honolulu last November when an
American flag was raised atop the Iolani Palace, the 19th century seat of
the Hawaiian monarchy. Reacting to the suggestion that Hawaiians aren't as
patriotic as other Americans, University of Hawaii-West Oahu professor Dan
Boylan said, "This is when people start acting very, very dumb in their
patriotism and flag-waving. I'll take Dan Inouye's empty sleeve as
patriotism long before I'll take a passing bumper sticker on my car that
says, 'America Forever.' "
Boylan was referring to former U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, who lost an arm
in World War II. And I don't see how you can view his statement as anything
but intelligent and pro-American.
Cont...
http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep22.html
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://duelingbushes.tripod.com
Clintonholics Anonymous: We feel your pain.
Starbuck
The Pervert wrote:
> > > arms for hostages,
>
> > sure this is the simplified statement, the distillation of the crime.
> > Does repeating this make it less of a crime? If you want detail it's
> > there, just look for it.
>
> Without solid evidence, it makes it no crime at all. If you want to bring an
> action againt those you consider responsible, I encourage you to produce
> verifiable evidence and go forward with it. If you have such solid
> evidence, it is your duty to persue it.
>
> Do you have solid, verifiable evidence? Any? I'm not saying that evidence
> does or does not exist. What I am saying is that the reality is that you're
> just shooting off your mouth because you know you cannot be held accountable
> for your rantings and ravings, and nobody really takes you seriously anyway.
contrare, accountablity is everything in TRUE debate
BUSH PARDONS 6 IN IRAN AFFAIR, ABORTING A WEINBERGER TRIAL; PROSECUTOR
ASSAILS 'COVER-UP'
http://www.bartcop.com/pardon.htm
one was already convicted, 3 had pled guilty, and poppy was going to be
called to testify, and possibly indicted, all stopped by the pardons.
There must have been "solid, verifiable evidence" to convict and get
guilty pleas you think?
> > > it's just about sex, it's just
> > > about sex, it's just about sex,
>
> > what else was it about? Oh yeah, lying about it in a perjury trap. 70
> > million and that's all they got? No felony convictions? Say it isn't
> > so.
>
> Perjury is a fairly significant issue. Obstruction of Justice is a
> significant issue. Maybe not to you, and maybe not to some Democrats, but
> some people of both major parties do not consider them trivial. I am one of
> those.
the truth of the matter is they hated that clinton won and would do
whatever to get him out. Most of the hypocrits going after him were
getting sex on the side in one form or another, most politicians do.
If clinton had pardoned people possibly about to testify against him
would you call that "obstruction of justice"?
>
> > > GW Bush, with degrees from Yale and Harvard, is ridiculed for his
> > > stupidity by Hollywood starlets
>
> Coulter has a point with that one.
dumbya can't think his way out of a wet paper bag, you see it everytime
he has to go off script, he's just a corporate puppet.
"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the
legislative branch....I know the difference, and that difference is they
pass the laws and I execute them."
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job
to interpret law."
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's
some kind of federal program."
> Would you care to explain why Mr. Gore flunked out of graduate school even
> though his family was affluent? Are you suggesting that he wasn't smart
> enough to buy his way through? I understand that his grades in his
> undergrad work were barely passing and never once exceeded those of Mr.
> Bush. Question is, are you suggesting that Mr. Gore wasn't smart enough to
> buy his way through grad school as you claim (without any basis in fact nor
> evidence of any kind) Mr. Bush did?
what does gore matter, he's out of the picture. Gore is the lesser of
two evils, that's all.
It's pretty obvious that whatever bushie did in school he didn't learn
much. His scripted speeches are at about a 4th grade level mentality,
they've tried harder stuff but it comes off as phony, and when he goes
off script... look out.
>
> Another question. Just how stupid do you think people here are?
there's all levels on both sides. It did take awhile for the replies to
get to this level of intelligence, what that means... who knows.
> Statistically Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats,
cite? I thought the majority of colleges were liberal?
I thought your man Rove stated "some education is ok but too much leads
to voting democratic". whut up wit dat?
> but aren't you insulting the intelligence of even Democrats with this silly nonsense?
all I've pretty much got up to this point is one liners and name
calling, very little substantive debate
>
> And since when are Harvard and Yale bastions of conservative education that
> just give degrees away? Should we conclude that JFK graduated from Harvard
> simply becasue his family was rich?
were did I say they all do it? just that it is possible
> > > whose course of study is limited to
> > > what they learned from bald, sweaty little men on casting couches.
>
> Being involved in the entertainment industry, I'd quarrel with this one.
> But that's only because I know what I'm talking about.
well at least some part of you is honest
> > coulter's course of study is learned from horned sweaty people from the
> > dark side, I'm sure the frau is well read on chief propagandist
> > Goebbels.
>
> And you only looked at the pictures?
never saw the book and don't need to. I can condense it for mrs coulter
from what I know of her history.
liberals are all evil liars
the media is a bunch of evil lying liberals
both of which are highly oversimplistic and stupid lying statements
only 18 percent of the country is liberal. What about the others that
voted for clinton gore?
the media is not liberal and does not have a liberal majority, not even
close.
liberal: broad minded, progressive, generous, culturally oriented,
and since rush pigboy, and annthrax coulter are THE EXACT DIAMETRIC
OPPOSITES of liberal, I guess they must be
narrow minded, regressive/degenerative, stingy, trailer park oriented
AND the root of the word from the latin "liberalis" "pertaining to a
free man" also the root of "liberty" And the corporate greedpigs and
their shill's pigboy and ann can't have that now can they. No wonder
they've tried to demonize the thought.
> Now, I have successfully answered your question above, to wit:
>
> > > If Democrats were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
> > > dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments.
> >
> > I can do that, let's see if the ditto people can do the same, LOL
>
> Then again, I'm not a ditto person. I am a free thinker.
amen to that brother. And you have proven my point, ditto head by it's
very definition can't be a free thinker. If they did they'd notice that
he's a lying shill.
Neal Atkins
wrote:
>But despite the vast, left-wing conspiracy working against her, Coulter has
>appeared on every show this side of "Meet the Osbournes" to plug the book.
>Slander is No. 1 on the Publishers Weekly list, No. 1 on the New York Times
>list, No. 3 on amazon.com and No. 1 in the hearts of liberal-bashing
>Americans from coast to coast.
#3 on amazon? Figures, the nerds are probably still buying Algore's
"earth in the lurch".
>The "joke" quote is attributed to director Robert Altman, who was primarily
>criticizing the Bush administration. Also, Altman was talking not about
>genuine displays of patriotism, but the commercialized omnipresence of the
>flag. As he later told People magazine, "I don't think [the American flag]
>should be on brassieres."
Altman is an anarchist and ex-patriot. He was one of the few
hollywierd socialist that actually left the U.S. Hope he stays out.
And since he's queer, I guess he's only concerned with the bra he's
wearing.
The Pervert
>
>
> The Pervert wrote:
>
> > > > arms for hostages,
> >
> > > sure this is the simplified statement, the distillation of the crime.
> > > Does repeating this make it less of a crime? If you want detail it's
> > > there, just look for it.
> >
> > Without solid evidence, it makes it no crime at all. If you want to
bring an
> > action againt those you consider responsible, I encourage you to produce
> > verifiable evidence and go forward with it. If you have such solid
> > evidence, it is your duty to persue it.
> >
> > Do you have solid, verifiable evidence? Any? I'm not saying that
evidence
> > does or does not exist. What I am saying is that the reality is that
you're
> > just shooting off your mouth because you know you cannot be held
accountable
> > for your rantings and ravings, and nobody really takes you seriously
anyway.
>
> contrare, accountablity is everything in TRUE debate
>
> BUSH PARDONS 6 IN IRAN AFFAIR, ABORTING A
> WEINBERGER TRIAL; PROSECUTOR ASSAILS 'COVER-UP'
> http://www.bartcop.com/pardon.htm
Verified. Thank you.
> one was already convicted, 3 had pled guilty, and poppy was going to be
> called to testify, and possibly indicted, all stopped by the pardons.
> There must have been "solid, verifiable evidence" to convict and get
> guilty pleas you think?
Yes, I do.
> > > > it's just about sex, it's just
> > > > about sex, it's just about sex,
> >
> > > what else was it about? Oh yeah, lying about it in a perjury trap. 70
> > > million and that's all they got? No felony convictions? Say it isn't
> > > so.
> >
> > Perjury is a fairly significant issue. Obstruction of Justice is a
> > significant issue. Maybe not to you, and maybe not to some Democrats,
but
> > some people of both major parties do not consider them trivial. I am
one of
> > those.
>
> the truth of the matter is they hated that clinton won and would do
> whatever to get him out. Most of the hypocrits going after him were
> getting sex on the side in one form or another, most politicians do.
That's not "the truth of the matyter" it is merely your obviously biased
opinion. Now, I'm all for opinions, biased or otherwise, but let's start
telling the truth about what is fact, and what is fancy. Yours last item
was nothing more than fanciful thinking bearing no real relationship to
objective reality.
> If clinton had pardoned people possibly about to testify against him
> would you call that "obstruction of justice"?
About to testify? I'd have to have real particulars rather han an obviously
loaded question.
> > > > GW Bush, with degrees from Yale and Harvard, is ridiculed for his
> > > > stupidity by Hollywood starlets
> >
> > Coulter has a point with that one.
Of course, it's not much of a commentary on those Hollywood types, starlets
or otherwise.
> dumbya can't think his way out of a wet paper bag, you see it everytime
> he has to go off script, he's just a corporate puppet.
Not at all. That's just purely biased rhetoric, and a pretty damned stupid
rhetoric at that.
> > Would you care to explain why Mr. Gore flunked out of graduate school
even
> > though his family was affluent? Are you suggesting that he wasn't smart
> > enough to buy his way through? I understand that his grades in his
> > undergrad work were barely passing and never once exceeded those of Mr.
> > Bush. Question is, are you suggesting that Mr. Gore wasn't smart enough
to
> > buy his way through grad school as you claim (without any basis in fact
nor
> > evidence of any kind) Mr. Bush did?
>
> what does gore matter, he's out of the picture. Gore is the lesser of
> two evils, that's all.
Uh... right. Thanks for playing the game and we have some lovely parting
gifts for you on the way out.
> It's pretty obvious that whatever bushie did in school he didn't learn
> much. His scripted speeches are at about a 4th grade level mentality,
> they've tried harder stuff but it comes off as phony, and when he goes
> off script... look out.
More of the same, biased bullshit... sorry, I mean biased propoganda without
any foundation in fact, or as you said above, "accountability." Try again.
On second thought, don't.
But since you brought up "a 4th grade level mentality," when, exactly, did
you stop learning anything about spelling, grammar and syntax?
> > Another question. Just how stupid do you think people here are?
>
> there's all levels on both sides. It did take awhile for the replies to
> get to this level of intelligence, what that means... who knows.
>
> > Statistically Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats,
>
> cite? I thought the majority of colleges were liberal?
Source: The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 1997, based
on survery conducted in 1996, as seen in "America at Odds: The Essentials"
by Beth Henshen and Edward Sidlow, published by Wadsworth Publishing,
Chapter 8, page 207, (c) 1999. (It's a college level political science
textbook.)
Of those who were college graduates, 35% were Republicans, 28% were
Democrats, and 37% were Independents. Of those having "some college," 31%
were Republicans, 29% were Democrats, and 40% were Indeopendents. Of those
with LESS (emphasis mine) than a high school diploma, 22% were Republicans,
38% were Democrats and 40% were Independents.
Is that specific and accountable enough for you?
> I thought your man Rove stated "some education is ok but too much leads
> to voting democratic". whut up wit dat?
Rove is not "my man." Try again.
> > but aren't you insulting the intelligence of even Democrats with this
silly nonsense?
>
> all I've pretty much got up to this point is one liners and name
> calling, very little substantive debate
And you call what you've offered "substantive debate?" Really? Do you
really, honestly claim that with a straight face? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
That's a good one! Yes, indeed. Very funny!
Now just for grins, take a look at your post and see how often YOU are the
name caller. Go ahead. Take a look. Now take a look at at mine and count
how many times I've called somebody a derogatory name.
I await your retraction.
> > And since when are Harvard and Yale bastions of conservative education
that
> > just give degrees away? Should we conclude that JFK graduated from
Harvard
> > simply becasue his family was rich?
>
> were did I say they all do it? just that it is possible
Ah, so throwing in a misdirection for the purpose of... what? Trashing the
intelligence and educational accomplishments of the President of the United
States? You were talking about substantive debate, weren't you? One might
wonder why... unless that, too, was just another misdirection.
> > > > whose course of study is limited to
> > > > what they learned from bald, sweaty little men on casting couches.
> >
> > Being involved in the entertainment industry, I'd quarrel with this one.
> > But that's only because I know what I'm talking about.
>
> well at least some part of you is honest
More, it would clearly appear, than you.
> > > coulter's course of study is learned from horned sweaty people from
the
> > > dark side, I'm sure the frau is well read on chief propagandist
> > > Goebbels.
> >
> > And you only looked at the pictures?
>
> never saw the book and don't need to. I can condense it for mrs coulter
> from what I know of her history.
I was talking about the "chief propagandist Goebbels" who you brought up.
Part of that "substantive debate" you were talking about.
> liberals are all evil liars
> the media is a bunch of evil lying liberals
>
> both of which are highly oversimplistic and stupid lying statements
>
> only 18 percent of the country is liberal. What about the others that
> voted for clinton gore?
Actually, that would include me. And over the past two decades, 35-50%
considered themselves moderates (which would also include me) and between 26
and 33% considered themselves conservative according to the Gallup
organization, The New York Times and CBS News who routinely conducts polls
asking individuals what their ideological self-identification is.
> the media is not liberal and does not have a liberal majority, not even
> close.
76% of the national media (reporters and editors) identify themselves as
liberal Democrats.
> liberal: broad minded, progressive, generous, culturally oriented,
>
> and since rush pigboy, and annthrax coulter are THE EXACT DIAMETRIC
> OPPOSITES of liberal, I guess they must be
>
> narrow minded, regressive/degenerative, stingy, trailer park oriented
You can guess all you want. Of course, it would only be your individual
guess, and not worthy of your "substantive debate." And didn't you complain
about name calling earlier? Or was that just about *other people* name
calling? How progressive, broad minded and honest of you.
> AND the root of the word from the latin "liberalis" "pertaining to a
> free man" also the root of "liberty" And the corporate greedpigs and
> their shill's pigboy and ann can't have that now can they. No wonder
> they've tried to demonize the thought.
This is more of your substantive debate without name calling, right?
> > Now, I have successfully answered your question above, to wit:
> >
> > > > If Democrats were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
> > > > dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments.
> > >
> > > I can do that, let's see if the ditto people can do the same, LOL
> >
> > Then again, I'm not a ditto person. I am a free thinker.
>
> amen to that brother. And you have proven my point, ditto head by it's
> very definition can't be a free thinker. If they did they'd notice that
> he's a lying shill.
Actually, I have proven NONE of your biased points at all! Maybe you didn't
notice that. Does that suggest something about your level of perception?
The Pervert
"Riggs" <XNZBPL...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9253E583A6B...@216.166.71.232...
> > A fun book to read...unless you're a liberal.
>
> But despite the vast, left-wing conspiracy working against her, Coulter
has
> appeared on every show this side of "Meet the Osbournes" to plug the book.
> Slander is No. 1 on the Publishers Weekly list, No. 1 on the New York
Times
> list, No. 3 on amazon.com and No. 1 in the hearts of liberal-bashing
> Americans from coast to coast.
>
> Seems like a good time to point out just a few of the hateful
> proclamations, misleading assertions and incorrect statements in the book.
>
> On p. 4, Coulter establishes her tone--and her propensity for twisting
> quotes like Twizzler sticks to suit her needs--when she writes: "The
> infernal flag-waving after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of their gourds.
> For the left, 'flag-waving' is an epithet. Liberals variously call the
flag
> a 'joke,' 'very, very dumb,' and--most cutting--'not cosmopolitan.' ''
>
> The "joke" quote is attributed to director Robert Altman, who was
primarily
> criticizing the Bush administration. Also, Altman was talking not about
> genuine displays of patriotism, but the commercialized omnipresence of the
> flag. As he later told People magazine, "I don't think [the American flag]
> should be on brassieres."
And it's a good joke... about the flag on brassiers. Mr. Altman, while an
unabashed radical liberal (his son is a bit more conservative), is an
absolutely brilliant film director. On the other hand, liberals (in my
experience -- can't speak about them all) tend to be not quite as
enthusiastic in their displays of patriotism. Not sure if this is a bad
thing or a good thing.
> University of Hawaii-West Oahu professor Dan
> Boylan said, "This is when people start acting very, very dumb in their
> patriotism and flag-waving. I'll take Dan Inouye's empty sleeve as
> patriotism long before I'll take a passing bumper sticker on my car that
> says, 'America Forever.' "
> Boylan was referring to former U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, who lost an arm
> in World War II. And I don't see how you can view his statement as
>anything but intelligent and pro-American.
Absolutely agreed on that one.
George Spelvin
>
> If Democrats were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
> dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments.
If right-wing nuts couldn't lie, they'd have nothing to say.
> Indeed almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage
> of small children. Thus for example, there is the popular tactic of
> repeating some meaningless phrase a billion times: "Arms for hostages,
> arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, it's just
> about sex, it's just about sex, dumb, dumb, dumb, money in politics,
> money in politics, money in politics, Enron, Enron, Enron!"
Example of Republican repetition of lies and meaningless phrases: "The
votes have been counted, and recounted, and recounted, etc." "Gore
claimed to have invented the internet, Gore claimed to have invented the
internet, Gore claimed to have invented the internet." "He'll say
anything to get elected, he'll say anything to get elected, he'll say
anything to get elected." "The DUI is old news, the DUI is old news,
the DUI is old news." "Harken is no big deal, Harken is no big deal,
Harken is no big deal." "Bush has changed the tone in Washington, Bush
has changed the tone in Washington, Bush has changed the tone in
Washington." ROTFLMAO!
> GW Bush, with degrees from Yale and Harvard, is ridiculed for his
> stupidity
You'd think that someone with degrees from Yale and Harvard would have a
modicum of intelligence. Weird.
> by Hollywood starlets whose course of study is limited to
> what they learned from bald, sweaty little men on casting couches.
I guess Ann knows all about that.
> From Ann Coulter's 'Slander - Liberal Lies About the American Right'.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400046610/qid=1027369087/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-0097924-8836869
>
> A fun book to read...unless you're a liberal.
It's especially fun for liberals because it is as ridiculous as those
who think she makes any sense.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Teddy
Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)
Starbuck
The Pervert wrote:
> >
> > BUSH PARDONS 6 IN IRAN AFFAIR, ABORTING A
> > WEINBERGER TRIAL; PROSECUTOR ASSAILS 'COVER-UP'
>
> > http://www.bartcop.com/pardon.htm
>
> Verified. Thank you.
> > There must have been "solid, verifiable evidence" to convict and get
> > guilty pleas you think?
>
> Yes, I do.
your obviously not a neocon, a neocon would just clip this part out
> > the truth of the matter is they hated that clinton won and would do
> > whatever to get him out. Most of the hypocrits going after him were
> > getting sex on the side in one form or another, most politicians do.
>
> That's not "the truth of the matyter" it is merely your obviously biased
> opinion. Now, I'm all for opinions, biased or otherwise, but let's start
> telling the truth about what is fact, and what is fancy. Yours last item
> was nothing more than fanciful thinking bearing no real relationship to
> objective reality.
isn't that the same thing you said about my arms for hostages point?
it's pretty hard to prove that they went after clinton because they
wanted him out, but here goes. It was a protracted witch hunt involving
a supposedly "independent" prosecutor and key testimony from a crooked
judge named david hale(felony convict). The key defendant was paula
jones. She claimed the suite was to "save my good name", but later does
a penthouse (repug family values) spread, and boxing with tonya harding,
LOL. They even had to twist the laws around to get a sitting president
to testify.
All that money and effort though led to naught. How many felony
convictions did they get of members of the clinton admin for acts they
committed during the clinton presidency? You'd think if there was
something there all those "smarter" conservatives would have nailed
somebody.
Compare this to say Nixon, who was so guilty he resigned without a
fight. Compare this to the felony convictions during the raygun and
poppy bush admins. (link if you desire)
> > If clinton had pardoned people possibly about to testify against him
> > would you call that "obstruction of justice"?
>
> About to testify? I'd have to have real particulars rather han an obviously
> loaded question.
read the linked article and get back with me. They tried to get poppy to
testify and release his diary, he stonewalled and then pardoned.
Something to hide maybe... nahhh. And it's still going on, how come
dumbya won't release the raygun era whitehouse records that were due to
be released by the freedom of information act.... something to hide?
What if clinton had pardoned to avoid prosecution? We never would have
heard the end of it.
> > dumbya can't think his way out of a wet paper bag, you see it everytime
> > he has to go off script, he's just a corporate puppet.
>
> Not at all. That's just purely biased rhetoric, and a pretty damned stupid
> rhetoric at that.
no it's based on his failure in the business world and his plethora of
inane off the cuff comments. He cannot talk without a script, that sir
is a puppet.
"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the
peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an
assignment."
tell me the truth, does this statement signify intelligence?
george soros, a highly regarded self made businessman said of dumbya
"he's not a good businessman" "we hired him because of his name". I
contend that's what happened with the presidency. They bought his way to
the presidency, if his name wasn't bush he'd be flipping burgers or
digging a ditch.
> > what does gore matter, he's out of the picture. Gore is the lesser of
> > two evils, that's all.
>
> Uh... right. Thanks for playing the game and we have some lovely parting
> gifts for you on the way out.
what area you trying to do pass the buck to someone who isn't around?
> But since you brought up "a 4th grade level mentality," when, exactly, did
> you stop learning anything about spelling, grammar and syntax?
I can do that too, what's the point? If most of what I get is just one
liners, then it would be wasted effort anyway. I'd rather spend time
getting more points across than worrying about grammatical perfection,
which I don't see on your part either.
> > > Statistically Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats,
> >
> > cite? I thought the majority of colleges were liberal?
>
> Source: The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 1997, based
> on survery conducted in 1996, as seen in "America at Odds: The Essentials"
> by Beth Henshen and Edward Sidlow, published by Wadsworth Publishing,
> Chapter 8, page 207, (c) 1999. (It's a college level political science
> textbook.)
>
> Of those who were college graduates, 35% were Republicans, 28% were
> Democrats, and 37% were Independents. Of those having "some college," 31%
> were Republicans, 29% were Democrats, and 40% were Indeopendents. Of those
> with LESS (emphasis mine) than a high school diploma, 22% were Republicans,
> 38% were Democrats and 40% were Independents.
>
> Is that specific and accountable enough for you?
yes thank you. A link would be nice though, were they registered members
of political parties?
> > I thought your man Rove stated "some education is ok but too much leads
> > to voting democratic". whut up wit dat?
>
> Rove is not "my man." Try again.
you could argue that Rove was the most influential person regarding
dumbya's election. Why would he say this? Is it because he depends on a
base of uneducated people? I contend that the majority of Americans base
their election decisions on the television, if this is true then I rest
my case.
> And you call what you've offered "substantive debate?" Really? Do you
> really, honestly claim that with a straight face? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
> That's a good one! Yes, indeed. Very funny!
my very first point wasn't "substantive debate"?
> Now just for grins, take a look at your post and see how often YOU are the
> name caller. Go ahead. Take a look. Now take a look at at mine and count
> how many times I've called somebody a derogatory name.
>
> I await your retraction.
I openly use name calling, I readily admit it, do ann and rush? I also
use detailed debate points something I see as lacking in this NG
> > > And since when are Harvard and Yale bastions of conservative education
> that
> > > just give degrees away? Should we conclude that JFK graduated from
> Harvard
> > > simply becasue his family was rich?
> >
> > were did I say they all do it? just that it is possible
>
> Ah, so throwing in a misdirection for the purpose of... what?
To point out your attempt at misdirection.
> Trashing the
> intelligence and educational accomplishments of the President of the United
> States?
"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the
legislative branch....I know the difference, and that difference is they
pass the laws and I execute them."
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job
to interpret law."
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's
some kind of federal program."
Please attempt to answer the question. In what way do these unscripted
statements reveal the "presidents" education and intelligence about the
most simple and basic ideas of the office he pretends to hold? These
aren't my "opinions", these are the man's very own words. I'm not
trashing his "accomplishments" he does a better job of that than I could
ever hope to.
> I was talking about the "chief propagandist Goebbels" who you brought up.
> Part of that "substantive debate" you were talking about.
I've read some about propaganda, from what I've seen and heard it
matches very closely with what rush and coulter do.
> > only 18 percent of the country is liberal. What about the others that
> > voted for clinton gore?
>
> Actually, that would include me.
voted for gore? say it isn't so.
> And over the past two decades, 35-50%
> considered themselves moderates (which would also include me)
I consider myself independent, I'm liberal on some issues and
conservative on others. Maybe "progressive moderate" would be better.
> > the media is not liberal and does not have a liberal majority, not even
> > close.
>
> 76% of the national media (reporters and editors) identify themselves as
> liberal Democrats.
I'm not talking about the rank and file, I'm talking about the
controlling interests and the message that's presented. The media is
there for the bottom line, which is share. Output is based on polls that
research what the people want to hear, the majority of whom are not
liberal. They also have a vested interest in protecting themselves and
promoting their agenda. The person signing the paycheck has the final
say.
90 percent of the mainstream media is OWNED by 6 conservative
corporations, the very consolidation aspect alone is grounds for suspect
of a controlling interest.
since you cite PEW as unbiased I'll use that as a source.
"The study by the Pew Research Center and Project for Excellence in
Journalism found that a whopping 76 percent of news stories about Gore
had a negative tone, with only 14 percent of the reports having a
positive theme about his competence."
"Bush has had almost three times more positive coverage, with 40 percent
of the news of the candidate portraying him as a non-traditional
Republican."
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0008a/pewbias.html
> > liberal: broad minded, progressive, generous, culturally oriented,
why do ann and rush demonize this word?
> > and since rush pigboy, and annthrax coulter are THE EXACT DIAMETRIC
> > OPPOSITES of liberal, I guess they must be
> >
> > narrow minded, regressive/degenerative, stingy, trailer park oriented
> > AND the root of the word from the latin "liberalis" "pertaining to a
> > free man" also the root of "liberty" And the corporate greedpigs and
> > their shill's pigboy and ann can't have that now can they. No wonder
> > they've tried to demonize the thought.
>
> This is more of your substantive debate without name calling, right?
please try to answer why ann and rush would be against a "free man" and
"liberty" instead of merely questioning my debating skills.
> Actually, I have proven NONE of your biased points at all! Maybe you didn't
> notice that. Does that suggest something about your level of perception?
you admitted there was a crime with the "arms for hostages" point, so at
least "SOME". You also admitted to being a moderate and not a ditto head
or neocon. So my general contention is that after looking for days for
an intelligent debater, from the rank and file ditto head neocons, when
I finally find one he is neither ditto head nor neocon.
++++++++++++++++++++++
"And so, in my State of the-my State of the Union-or state-my speech to
the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation-I asked
Americans to give 4,000 years-4,000 hours over the next-the rest of your
life-of service to America. That's what I asked-4,000 hours."
Bridgeport, Conn., April 9, 2002
have you ditto heads signed up for your 4,000 years of service, that
your prez asked for in the "whatever you want to call it" speech?
Starbuck
The Pervert wrote:
> And it's a good joke... about the flag on brassiers. Mr. Altman, while an
> unabashed radical liberal (his son is a bit more conservative), is an
> absolutely brilliant film director. On the other hand, liberals (in my
> experience -- can't speak about them all) tend to be not quite as
> enthusiastic in their displays of patriotism. Not sure if this is a bad
> thing or a good thing.
what's more important, an "act" of patriotism, like going to war, or
just talking about it, like waving the flag?
that to me was the primary difference between bush boy and mcCain. How
the repugs chose between them is beyond me.
> > University of Hawaii-West Oahu professor Dan
> > Boylan said, "This is when people start acting very, very dumb in their
> > patriotism and flag-waving. I'll take Dan Inouye's empty sleeve as
> > patriotism long before I'll take a passing bumper sticker on my car that
> > says, 'America Forever.' "
>
> > Boylan was referring to former U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, who lost an arm
> > in World War II. And I don't see how you can view his statement as
> >anything but intelligent and pro-American.
>
> Absolutely agreed on that one.
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."
ann coulter---MSNBC
Thom Jeff
Nicely done!
It would be entertaining to go footnote-by-footnote in her book and
debunk her entire thesis, wouldn't it? No doubt easy, but too
time-consuming, and unfortuantly, with no potential audience.
Because, in fact, the truth about Ann Coulter is obvious for all those
with the ability to discern. And they're not the ones who sent her book
to number one.
Thom
The Pervert
> > > > Statistically Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats,
> > >
> > > cite? I thought the majority of colleges were liberal?
> >
> > Source: The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 1997,
based
> > on survery conducted in 1996, as seen in "America at Odds: The
Essentials"
> > by Beth Henshen and Edward Sidlow, published by Wadsworth Publishing,
> > Chapter 8, page 207, (c) 1999. (It's a college level political science
> > textbook.)
> >
> > Of those who were college graduates, 35% were Republicans, 28% were
> > Democrats, and 37% were Independents. Of those having "some college,"
31%
> > were Republicans, 29% were Democrats, and 40% were Indeopendents. Of
those
> > with LESS (emphasis mine) than a high school diploma, 22% were
Republicans,
> > 38% were Democrats and 40% were Independents.
> >
> > Is that specific and accountable enough for you?
>
> yes thank you. A link would be nice though, were they registered members
> of political parties?
No link. It came from a book. I gave you the source and I gave you the
stats. If you want to examine anything further, you're going to have to do
your own research.
> I openly use name calling, I readily admit it, (snip)
Your responses indicate that you're not really interested in legitmate
discussion. I'm not really all that interested in word gymnastics.
(snip and reposition)
> > But since you brought up "a 4th grade level mentality," when, exactly,
did
> > you stop learning anything about spelling, grammar and syntax?
>
> I can do that too, what's the point? If most of what I get is just one
> liners, then it would be wasted effort anyway. I'd rather spend time
> getting more points across than worrying about grammatical perfection,
> which I don't see on your part either.
Actually, you may have picked up one typo, that's about all. You seem more
interested in scoring points rather than having an honest exchange of ideas.
Since by your own words this is a wasted effort, I'll decline wasting any
more of my time as well.
Starbuck
The Pervert wrote:
> > yes thank you. A link would be nice though, were they registered members
> > of political parties?
>
> No link. It came from a book. I gave you the source and I gave you the
> stats. If you want to examine anything further, you're going to have to do
> your own research.
I'm not demanding a link, just that it would be nice if I could read the
article myself.
>
> > I openly use name calling, I readily admit it, (snip)
>
> Your responses indicate that you're not really interested in legitmate
> discussion. I'm not really all that interested in word gymnastics.
a lot of your "discussion" seems to be personal attacks, like this post.
You haven't countered a single one of my points in this response, your
"legitimate discussion" is deteriorating.
> (snip and reposition)
> > > But since you brought up "a 4th grade level mentality," when, exactly,
> did
> > > you stop learning anything about spelling, grammar and syntax?
> >
> > I can do that too, what's the point? If most of what I get is just one
> > liners, then it would be wasted effort anyway. I'd rather spend time
> > getting more points across than worrying about grammatical perfection,
> > which I don't see on your part either.
>
> Actually, you may have picked up one typo, that's about all.
from your first paragraph above "No link." and "It came from a book."
are not sentences. Your other posts have similar incomplete sentences.
BUT WHO CARES. I would rather have a debate in which we each addressed
all of each others points rather than some attempt at proper english,
which is lost on most of this crowd anyway.
> You seem more
> interested in scoring points rather than having an honest exchange of ideas.
> Since by your own words this is a wasted effort,
your trying to twist my words, read it again, for me it is a wasted
effort to try for grammatical perfection, I think it is more important
to get the point across. To anyone who has an easy time at grammatical
perfection, then kudos to them, but that's not me.
I never said it is a wasted effort to have an honest exchange of ideas,
as you are trying to imply
> I'll decline wasting any
> more of my time as well.
your a quitter, you didn't respond to any of my points in this post, nor
did you make any further political points of your own. Is it because you
can't? That's what I suspect, it's not your intelligence or skill, it's
the fact that your trying to defend the indefensible.
When you quit like that your giving your opponent the last hit.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Bush job approval rating dips into 60s"
"July 23, 2002 Posted: 3:45 PM EDT"
"Now a Newsweek poll shows his job approval at 65 percent"
"and an Ipsos-Reid poll done for the Cook Political Report has him at 67
percent."
http://my.netscape.com/index2.psp?cp=myfresh
sounds like things are deteriorating for the repugs(gladly) and for the
country(sadly)
we know it's a bush recession, how about a bush depression?
"Nasdaq mauled; Dow also bleeds, Financial, gold, energy merchant shares
mauled"
By Julie Rannazzisi, CBS.MarketWatch.com 5:42 PM ET July 23, 2002
"Analysts at research and money management firm Bridgewater Associates
point out that this is the first time since 1930 that the stock market
has fallen in the face of aggressive Fed easing."
""In that sense, we are in uncharted waters. Clinically speaking, a
recession is an economic contraction brought on by tightening and ended
by easing. A depression is a self-reinforcing economic contraction,
perpetuated by debt liquidation in which central bank easing is impotent
to reverse the contraction. Recent market action is symptomatic of
depression," Bridgewater pointed out."
fembot
<thomje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be entertaining to go footnote-by-footnote in her book and
> debunk her entire thesis, wouldn't it? No doubt easy, but too
> time-consuming, and unfortuantly, with no potential audience.
>
> Because, in fact, the truth about Ann Coulter is obvious for all those
> with the ability to discern. And they're not the ones who sent her book
> to number one.
>
> Thom
Good points Thom. And why try to debunk her. I don't think she cares if
people find out if there thesis is wrong or not. What matters to her is if
her book sell, which it is because of her hyped up charges.
--
Eric Chomko
: Godwin's Law invoked.
I think it requires the poster to call another poster a Nazi. A passing
reference to things Nazi, is not the same as claimig that you are one.
See: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
Eric
: --
: Jafo
Eric Chomko
: [sic]
I am still trying to understand why Clinton got "faulty intelligence."
Eric
: --
: Jafo
Unknown
>Jafo () wrote:
>: Well, it was important enough for Clinton to bomb a Sudanese aspirin
>: factory to throw off his pursuers...
>I am still trying to understand why Clinton got "faulty intelligence."
Clinton *is* the personificatin of faulty, self-serving intelligence,
to the point of sheer ruthlessness, and, apparently from this
instance, murder.
--
Jafo
z
>
> It would be entertaining to go footnote-by-footnote in her book and
> debunk her entire thesis, wouldn't it? No doubt easy, but too
> time-consuming, and unfortuantly, with no potential audience.
>
> Because, in fact, the truth about Ann Coulter is obvious for all those
> with the ability to discern. And they're not the ones who sent her book
> to number one.
>
> Thom
Slender…
Coulter's physique? Her intellectual and analytical prowess? Or just
her grasp on the truth? Thanks to the Daily Howler
(http://www.dailyhowler.com) for spending the last couple of weeks
checking out just some of the footnotes, on NEXIS and elsewhere. I've
taken the liberty of summarizing their postings; check the website for
the full story. (And to head off knee-jerk whimperings of victimhood
by Coulter fans, let me point out that checking the website will also
demonstrate that their other topic for the last couple of weeks has
been *defending* Bush against charges of improper dealings in re
Harken).
Coulter's book is important. It's number one on the best-seller list,
and right from page one, it's filled with howling misstatements of
fact. On point after point, its readers have no way of knowing how
baldly they're being deceived. There are plenty of honest,
constructive conservatives around. Ann Coulter isn't one of them.
The Couric Lie
One of its flat misstatements is on page 51, where Coulter says that
Katie Couric called Reagan an airhead.
COULTER (page 51): "to call you an "airhead" (Katie Couric, on Ronald
Reagan)-well, that makes strong men tremble and weak men liberals."
But what did Couric say, and in what context? Every political
columnist at the time was responding to a review of an advance copy of
'Dutch', by Linton Weeks in the Washington Post.
WEEKS: "At points in the book, however, Morris is more dismissive of
Reagan's intellect. He writes that he could not believe how shallow
Reagan's 'hidden depths' appeared to be. He refers to Reagan's
frequent use of cue cards, to his deference to aides on matters of
substance, and to the often-rambling answers the president gave to
interviewers.
After following him around for seven months, making friends with
Reagan insiders such as Michael Deaver, Donald Regan, George Shultz
and Caspar Weinberger, Morris writes that he was stumped. 'Dutch
remained a mystery to me, and worse still-dare I entertain such a
heresy, in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office?-an
airhead.'"
Weeks slightly misquoted the book; it actually said "an apparent
airhead" at the end of the passage he quoted. But no one else had seen
the book, and the story spread throughout the press. In his
long-awaited bio, pundits said, Edmund Morris calls Reagan an airhead!
But make no mistake-though Morris hadn't exactly called Reagan an
"airhead," he had come pretty close in some interviews.
NEWSWEEK September 26: "After three or four meetings [with Reagan], I
realized that culturally he was a yahoo and extremely unresponsive in
conversation," Morris said. "When you asked him a question about
himself, it was like dropping a stone into a well and not hearing a
splash. I never got anywhere in interviews, except for odd moments of
strangeness, like the time I showed him a leaf and he began talking
about his boyhood." The boisterous biographer had more to say as he
batted his subject around: "The surface reality of Reagan was boring.
His everyday conversation was boring. His documents were boring. He
was a mystery that had to be plumbed."
Morris told Newsweek that Reagan had seemed "shatteringly banal" when
they lunched in 1982. The political world was flogging these
statements as Couric went on the air. Indeed, Morris was still talking
the talk in a Meet the Press session on October 3. "I have no doubt
whatsoever that Reagan was a great man and a great president," he
said. "But some of his conversation, as you may possibly have noticed
yourself, in private was quite astonishingly banal." It was in this
context-armed with the Post's faulty quote-that Couric said Morris
called Reagan an "airhead." In fact, he hadn't called Reagan an
"airhead" at all. He had called him a "yahoo" and "banal."
So did Couric actually call Reagan an airhead to advance the liberal
agenda? Or was she just quoting a controversial statement from a hot
new book to grab the viewers' interest?
COURIC, 9/27/99: "Good morning. 'The Gipper was an airhead.' That's
one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that's
drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today, Monday,
September the 27th, 1999."
It wasn't just Couric who thought this was true. The Weeks misquote
gained wide circulation; pundits began to criticize Morris for having
called Reagan an "airhead." For example, Tim Russert used the one-word
quote on the September 26 Meet the Press; on the program, Ed Meese,
Marlin Fitzwater and Mike Deaver all insisted that Ronald Reagan
clearly wasn't an "airhead." Later that day, the AP ran a story on the
Meet the Press session, also using the single word "airhead." When
Couric went on the air the next day, at least six major papers were
running stories in which Reagan's friends pummeled Morris because he'd
called Reagan an airhead. Although the Post had corrected its error on
September 24, it had done so in standard, buried format. Almost no one
in the press-and none of Reagan's friends and associates-seemed to
know that the quote wasn't right.
Indeed, despite the picture painted in 'Slander', many conservatives
were saying the exact same thing as Couric.
HANNITY, 9/27/99: " Coming up, the authorized biography of Ronald
Reagan calls him, quote, an airhead. "
HANNITY, 9/30/99: "Still to come, former Reagan Attorney General Edwin
Meese. He sounds off on that controversial book that calls President
Reagan an airhead"
NOVAK in the 10/11/99 Weekly Standard: "'Dutch' presents-and
embroiders-the conventional liberal wisdom about Ronald Reagan, and
[Morris'] book will be read with satisfaction by the president's
detractors. Over the last three years of the presidency Morris (as the
authorized biographer and silent observer of presidential meetings)
had the opportunity to view Reagan closely, and in Dutch he refers to
the president's 'encyclopedic ignorance' and 'hardening of his mind.'
Reagan lacked 'intellectual energy' and 'had long since abandoned
inquiry for the reiteration of old certainties.' 'Reagan was, after
all, an old man, with scar tissue near his heart and steadily
atrophying powers of concentration.' 'An apparent airhead' emerged in
the interviews with the author. 'Beyond amazement, I was distressed by
the relentless banality, not to say incoherence, of the president's
replies.'"
Wow! Were pundits wrong when they said that Morris had called Ronald
Reagan an "airhead?" According to Novak, the book mocked Reagan's
"encyclopedic ignorance." Should Couric have led with that point
instead? Should Novak apologize to Morris?
Furthermore, when Morris did the Today show on September 29, Couric
gave him a difficult time, challenging him for his rough rap on
Ronnie. When Couric and Coulter did battle last month, Couric
described the session:
COURIC (6/26/02): "I really conducted an extremely challenging
interview with [Morris] because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his
book. It was a very, very unflattering portrayal. The Reagans were
very unhappy with it. Conservatives were very unhappy with it.
Afterwards, Edmund Morris was unhappy with the interview, and Nancy
Reagan called to thank me for my line of questioning. So I'm just
wondering how that gibes with your contention that somehow I'm a
Ronald Reagan basher? "
If you've read the text of the Morris interview, there's no reason to
doubt this is true.
Even if you think Couric's statement was wrong, she clearly didn't
call Reagan an "airhead" herself. Coulter-let's say it-is lying. And
when Couric complained about this on the Today show, in response,
Coulter dissembled, as always. "Well, I didn't call you a Ronald
Reagan basher," she said-although that was the obvious meaning of
every word that she wrote on the subject in Slander. Coulter was
principally trashing Couric's motives. According to Coulter, Couric
said the things she said because she was trying to trash Ronald
Reagan. Couric's motive lay at the heart of Coulter's entire critique.
But here's the problem. Many others said what Couric said, and they
didn't say it to trash Ronald Reagan; clearly, they said it because
they thought it was true. Coulter, of course, didn't tell readers
this, but Sean Hannity said the same thing as Couric. Was Hannity
trashing Ronald Reagan? If Couric was trying to trash Ronald Reagan,
why did she challenge poor Morris so? Couric says that Nancy Reagan
called to thank her. Maybe Nancy was just trashing Ron too.
But Ann Coulter's attacks on Katie Couric have been getting big play
on TV and talk radio. Coulter is steam-rolling unprepared hosts,
telling them tales of how Katie Couric went on TV and called Ronald
Reagan an airhead. If Coulter's host knows that isn't true, she then
amends her bogus tale, saying that Katie Couric falsely claimed that
Edmund Morris called Reagan an airhead. One way or another, readers
and viewers are led to believe that Couric went out and trashed
Reagan. And our pundits are simply too lazy and careless to see this
tale properly told.
O'REILLY: "Joining us now is Ms. Coulter. I'm getting ahead of myself.
I'm so excited about this story now. Couric says that she was quoting
somebody else. But you say that she made the [airhead] comment, which
is the crux of the debate."
COULTER: "Right."
O'REILLY: "Who's right?"
COULTER: "Well, it's in my book. And I'm right, of course."
O'REILLY: "Well, she says she was quoting someone else. And she backed
it up somewhat in-"
COULTER: "No, I mean that's-I say that in my book. I don't say that it
came out of nowhere."
Take your pick. First Coulter tried saying that Couric did say it.
Then, when Bill began to challenge her account, she said she explained
the whole thing in her book.
Another Airhead
COULTER (page 134): "Another Republican who failed to meet the
exacting IQ standards of the media is President George W. Bush. The
image of Bush as an 'airhead'-as the New York Times nonjudgmentally
put it-has been lovingly nurtured by the media."
Wow! Did the New York Times call Bush an "airhead?" Coulter's footnote
offers two citations. The first is an article by Sam Howe Verhovek on
March 12, 2000.
VERHOVEK: "Still, if many of these voters express contempt today for
both Mr. Gore ('plastic,' 'detached,' 'a bore' were some of their
descriptions) and Mr. Bush ('an airhead,' 'out of his depth,'
'unqualified'), they also typically said they were likely to vote in
November, and to choose one or the other."
In the world of Ann Coulter, that's an example of liberal bias. Her
readers, once again, have no way of knowing how thoroughly they're
being misled.
Schlafly
Coulter charges the leftist femiNazi media has been ignoring or even
belittling Phyllis Schlafly.
COULTER (page 40): "The mainstream media ignore Schlafly when not
deploying their trademark elitist snubs. … Schlafly is preposterously
demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain
'relevant.'"
That last claim is duly footnoted; Coulter cites a Chicago Tribune
piece from 8/1/96. (Her charge is plural, but there's only one cite.)
But what does the article actually say? That Schlafly "will be
attending her 11th GOP convention this month…showing no intention of
being irrelevant". Demeaning is in the eye of the beholder.
COULTER: "There is certainly not the remotest possibility that the
mainstream media will ever breathe a word of [Schlafly's]
extraordinary accomplishments."
But in fact, the Tribune article continues:
"Schlafly rose to national prominence in 1964, when she wrote 'A
Choice Not an Echo,' a history of the Republican convention, regarded
as a manifesto for the far Right movement that championed Barry
Goldwater.
Then in the early 1970s, Schlafly took on the Equal Rights Amendment,
beginning a grassroots anti-ERA effort that eventually led to its
defeat. [James] Dobson says Schlafly 'almost single-handedly' defeated
the amendment.
In the process, she became the subject of scorn by feminists and
liberals. She was spit upon, took a public pie in the face. Feminist
Betty Friedan once told her, 'I'd like to burn you at the stake.' She
was vilified in a 1970s 'Doonesbury' cartoon.
'That gave me more status with my children than anything I've ever
done,' Schlafly said, laughing.
In 1976, at age 51, Schlafly was fighting the ERA, writing an 832-page
book about Henry Kissinger and raising six children when she entered
law school. She graduated 27th out of a class of 204."
Yet, Coulter says that this Tribune piece was "preposterously
demeaning" to Schlafly.
COULTER (page 40): "[According to the mainstream media], Phyllis
Schlafly never comes up with a witty or tart reply. She 'fumes'
(Newsweek) or 'opens her mouth' (New York Times) or 'snaps'
(Newsweek)."
Did the New York Times really say that Phyllis Schlafly "opens her
mouth?" Coulter offers no citation, and a diligent search reveals no
such statement. According to NEXIS, there are thirteen cites in the
NYT archive for the entry "Schlafly AND mouth." But in none of these
articles did the New York Times ever mention her opening it.
And when did Newsweek say that Schlafly "snapped" a reply? The cite is
twenty-three years old. Here's the 'offending' passage:
NEWSWEEK (4/30/79): "The changes [in state divorce codes] can
exacerbate the plight of older women. 'We now have a whole new class
of impoverished women not equipped to go into the work force,' snaps
Schlafly. Chicago lawyer Joseph DuCanto, president of the American
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, agrees. 'It's an illusion,' DuCanto
contends. 'A court says, 'Get out there, lady, and hustle.' You go to
Marshall Field's and talk to women clerks. One of two is divorced,
middle class and has to get and work, and that's the only work they
can do.'"
One might be lulled into believing that the article was supportive of
Schlafly's position.
AntiBush Bias
Coulter pretends that the press corps hounded Bush during Campaign
2000. The claim is simply absurd. If the press had wanted to go after
Bush, it would have flogged his business history. No such flogging was
ever observed. Let's perform one of Coulter's beloved searches.
According to NEXIS, the New York Times mentioned Harken exactly twice
from 1/1/99 through November 2000. (Kevin Sack, 5/8/99; Bob Herbert,
2/3/00)
The Religious Right
COULTER (page 166): "Despite the constant threat of the 'religious
right' in America, there is evidently no such thing as the 'atheist
left.' In a typical year, the New York Times refers to either
'Christian conservatives' or the 'religious right' almost two hundred
times. But in a LEXIS/NEXIS search of the entire New York Times
archives, the phrases 'atheist liberals' or 'the atheist left' do not
appear once. Only deviations from the left-wing norm merit labels."
In a footnote, Coulter extends her complaint. "In a one year period
(roughly corresponding to calendar year 2000), the New York Times
found occasion to mention either 'Christian conservatives' or the
'religious right' 187 times. Not once did the paper refer to 'atheist
liberals' or 'the atheist left.'"
To Coulter, of course, this is all a sign of gruesome bias. She goes
on to claim that the terms "religious right" and "Christian
conservative" are now used "just as some people once spat out the term
'Jew' as an insult."
It certainly makes for high excitement, but does it make any sense? Do
newspapers use "Christian conservative" as an emblem of hatred, and
avoid "atheist left" due to liberal bias? If so, we have big news to
share. If Coulter's NEXIS search has proven these things, then the
once-conservative Washington Times is spilling with lib bias, too. In
the calendar year 2000, how often did the New York Times refer to
"Christian conservatives" or the "religious right?" A NEXIS search of
that year presents 182 references. But the Washington Times-a much
slimmer paper-had 151 such cites that same year.
And how about those other terms-"atheist liberals" or "the atheist
left?" Coulter was right; the New York Times never used either term.
But guess what? The Washington Times never used the terms, either.
Things are worse than Coulter's nightmares; the Washington Times has
become part of the liberal media conspiracy too.
Cerebral Bill Bradley
COULTER, interviewed on Fox: "'Cerebral Bill Bradley,' for example, I
mean that's the most striking example. You run a LEXIS-NEXIS search-as
I did-on Bill Bradley and you would think his first name was
'Cerebral.' His name never got mentioned [inaudible] 'Cerebral Bill
Bradley.'"
According to current NEXIS files, the phrase "cerebral Bill Bradley"
appeared in American newspapers exactly six times from 1/1/99 through
4/1/00. The phrase didn't appear in any magazine. Here are the six
lonely cites in the file. (Note the major media outlets involved here,
and how four of the six cites are due to one Sandy Grady):
Sandy Grady, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/18/99
Sandy Grady, Bergen County Record, 3/23/99
Robert Jordan, Boston Globe, 4/23/99
Sandy Grady, Raleigh News and Observer, 11/10/99
Sandy Grady, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/6/99
Editorial, Albany Times-Union, 3/10/00
The shorter phrase "Cerebral Bradley" got five cites in American
papers and magazines, two of them openly mocking. Here's an example of
the way the press kept trying to build up those Dems:
SUSAN ISAACS, Newsday, 1/20/00: "John McCain is so dynamic the other
candidates-stilted Gore, cerebral Bradley,
careful-of-everything-you-say-so-you-don't-screw-up Bush, pompous
Hatch, goofy Forbes-are zombies in comparison."
That's right. Isaacs was saying how great McCain was compared to
'cerebral Bradley.'
The press had indeed given Bill Bradley a nickname; "Dollar," not
"Cerebral.". Running "Dollar Bill Bradley" through the same NEXIS base
for the same fifteen months gave us 32 cites-and a few hundred more if
you take "Dollar Bill" on its own. But Coulter knew not to mention on
Fox that, in fact, the press might have adopted a negative nickname
for liberal Bradley rather than an admiring one.
DeLay=Hitler
COULTER (page 1): "For his evident belief in a higher being, DeLay is
compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of
the New York Times. ('History teaches that when religion is injected
into politics-the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin,
Hitler, Kosovo-disaster follows.')"
Maureen Dowd did mention DeLay in the same article as the quote above;
but here's the true context of that quote:
DOWD: "In his announcement speech in Carthage, Al Gore joined the God
Squad, intoning that 'most Americans are hungry for a deeper
connection between politics and moral values; many would say
'spiritual values.' Without values of conscience, our political life
degenerates.'
Faith is an intensely personal matter. It should not be treated as a
credential or reduced to a sound bite. History teaches that when
religion is injected into politics-the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem,
Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo-disaster follows."
Only Coulter would discern that that last sentence referred
specifically to conservative DeLay, mentioned several paragraphs
previous, but not to liberal Gore, mentioned in the previous
paragraph.
Couric Brutalizes Specter
COULTER (page two): "In this universe, the public square is
wall-to-wall liberal propaganda. Americans wake up in the morning to
'America's Sweetheart,' Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about
Anita Hill ten years after the hearings…"
In the interview, Specter voluntarily cited his desire to discuss the
Anita Hill matter:
SPECTER: "I go into some of the background on the Professor Anita
Hill/Justice Clarence Thomas controversy, take up some questions which
never got to the public, such as why we never called Angela Wright,
who was a young woman who had a story very similar to Anita Hill's. I
go into the background of what happened on Judge Bork's confirmation
hearing and one of the big concerns that I had about Judge Bork on his
technical approach and lack of humanitarianism, when he upheld the
decision which said that women who worked for a lead company either
had to consent to be sterilized or to lose their jobs, which I thought
was exactly wrong."
After some unrelated questions, Couric asks about Anita Hill:
COURIC: "You know, you angered a lot of feminists when you accused
Anita Hill. In fact, you detail how she changed her testimony during
questioning, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. And you
accused her of publicly, quote, 'flat out perjury.' Any regrets? "
"Any regrets!" What a zinger!
SPECTER: "I think it was an impolitic thing to say. But I think that
it was warranted on the facts. And in this book, I go into great
detail as to how I came to that conclusion and why, and how another
key member of the Judiciary Committee agreed with me."
According to Coulter, Couric 'berated' him further, with:
COURIC: "Uh-huh."
"Uh-huh"! Katie, have you no mercy!
Couric asked no follow-up questions, covering her deviously clever
liberal tracks by next bringing up Marc Rich, no less.
Far Right Wing
DRUDGE reviewing Coulter: "In the entire New York Times archives on
LEXIS-NEXIS, there are 109 items using the phrase 'far right wing,'
but only 18 items that use 'far left wing,' she begins."
But by comparison, in the entire Washington Times archives on
LEXIS-NEXIS:
Far right wing: 37 uses
Far left wing: 7 uses
That's right, kids. According to Coulter's ratio test, the Washington
Times is once again just as liberal as the New York Times. Or is it
vice versa?
By the way, just for fun, here's one of Coulter's 'far right wing'
mentions:
ARATON: "Without a road victory in over a month, deadlocked at a game
apiece with a vastly inferior opponent, the Magic trailed deep into
the fourth quarter. Then Nick Anderson hit a 3-pointer from the far
right wing."
Boy, those liberals will sneak a lying liberal subliminal smear
against the conservatives anywhere, won't they?
NASCAR Bashing at the NYTimes
Coulter keeps it up till the last page:
COULTER (page 205): "The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup
champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost
every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page.
Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a
decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More
Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd.
(Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It
took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's name sufficiently
important to mention it on the first page."
But in reality, the New York Times put Earnhardt's death on its front
page the day after it happened. "Stock Car Star Killed on Last Lap of
Daytona 500.", written by Robert Lipsyte.
<http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F40915F635540C7A8DDDAB0894D9404482>
LIPSYTE (page one, 2/19/01): "Stock car racing's greatest current star
and one of its most popular and celebrated figures, Dale Earnhardt,
crashed and was killed today after he made a characteristically bold
lunge for better position on the last turn of the last lap of the
sport's premier event, the Daytona 500."
Lipsyte discussed the crash itself; recent deaths to other drivers;
safety devices that had been proposed; and Earnhardt's role as king of
the track. The Times captured the awe in which Earnhardt was held:
LIPSYTE: "[NASCAR president Mike] Helton had begun the day by
announcing to a drivers' meeting that because of its new television
contract with Fox and NBC, NASCAR had finally achieved 'absolute
professional status.'
At that meeting…Earnhardt sat in the front row, amiably shaking hands
with a parade of corporate executives in suits who seemed thrilled to
touch him.
The feeling cut across all classes. As he moved through the garage
area surrounded by the guests, sponsors and clients of other racing
teams, a man with a videocamera reached out and screamed, 'I almost
touched God.' No one laughed at him. "
Coulter pretends this article never existed, then focuses on tainting
a second article February 21 as a typical snobbish liberal smear job.
COULTER: "Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the
article began, 'His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.' The
Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people
watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all
over the South!"
But the article in question was written by Rick Bragg, an actual
down-home boy from the South, rather than a preppy WASP debutante from
Connecticut.
<http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F50D15FB3C5D0C728EDDAB0894D9404482>
(When Bragg won a Pulitzer in 1996, the Times notice said, "Rick
Bragg, 36, a native of Piedmont, Ala., has long said his life's
ambition was to write about the South.") On this occasion, Bragg was
writing from Earnhardt's hometown; his piece began in the local
WalMart because, on the day of the NASCAR crash, residents bought
every last bit of the store's Earnhardt memorabilia. As Bragg
explained what happened next, the tone of his piece became clear:
BRAGG (2/21/01): "Today, it was clear what had become of some of it
all: People had written their love on shirts and toys, and hung or
propped them on a fence outside the offices of Dale Earnhardt Inc.,
one of the fanciest buildings in town. By morning, the makeshift
memorial stretched 40 yards, and cars lined the country road.
'You were God to me,' a mourner scribbled on a card. Another wrote,
'My boyfriend's daddy loved you dearly.'
To the world outside Mooresville and the other little towns around
this red-clay corner of North Carolina, Dale Earnhardt might have been
racing's biggest superstar, a walking corporation who won millions in
prizes and millions more through smart marketing of his fame. He may
have been the force behind the sport's rise to nationwide popularity,
after greats like Richard Petty had faded from victory lane.
But before he was 'theirs,' as people here like to say, he was
'ours.'"
Conservatives know liberals as "savagely cruel bigots who hate America
and lie for sport." Incredibly, that is Coulter's final phrase. It
closes her strange, disturbed book. Amazing, isn't it? Coulter, having
just lied through her teeth about the Times, closes with a nasty rant
attacking "liberals" for lying! The patent disturbance informing this
book is thus put on its fullest display. Because no one else-of the
left, right or center-lies and dissembles like Coulter. Our question:
Why do TV producers and book reviewers and bloggers seem to think that
this is OK? The entire establishment puts up with Ann Coulter. We ask
our same question: Why is that?