Coulter vs. Carville

[Gino]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/11/coulter_vs_carville_on_health_care_town_halls.html

Carville gets owned. So many people on the left HATE her but she could freaking out-argue anyone.

[Gino]

I really don't think she landed any blows, she kind of just deflected his hits. More like a split decision, I've seen Ann do much better than that. I guess if you consider that she didn't say "Jews should be perfected", "woman shouldn't be allowed to vote" or something else ridiculous you can call that a win.

I guess we're going to argue over their argument.

Carville was asked about healthcare and the only thing he could do was scream about "birthers" and the stimulus.

Coulter, on the other hand, seemed to make a lot of sense. But then again, she's the best.

[rjv]

coulter is the better man

[101A]

I guess if you consider that she didn't say "Jews should be perfected",

Out of context;

She was talking about Christianity being 'perfected" Judaism; and was actually being self-deprecatory.

Jews have to follow all these laws, rules, traditions, etc....to get to heaven. (Old Covenant) Christians got the same God, but all they have to do is "believe" in his son - much easier; fast track to heaven (New Covenant): Judaism "perfected"

[LnGrrrR]

Out of context;

She was talking about Christianity being 'perfected" Judaism; and was actually being self-deprecatory.

Jews have to follow all these laws, rules, traditions, etc....to get to heaven. (Old Covenant) Christians got the same God, but all they have to do is "believe" in his son - much easier; fast track to heaven (New Covenant): Judaism "perfected"

That's why Judaism is so much more coherent on its face, I find. The idea of a God with a chosen people, and a contract worked out with those people, makes far more sense to me than a three-in-one God who's willing to absolve all as long as they believe in him, but doom forever those who won't.

[rjv]

this thread never had a chance.

[Shastafarian]

That's a straw man if I ever saw one. Since Ann went to Cornell and I would like to presume she obtained better vocabulary than what she said. Perfected is a real ambiguous term to use in that situation and it has more often been used in prejudiced social situations...mainly the eugenics movement. I would expect someone supposedly highly intellectual to have better wording for all the criticizing she does for others comments (and wording)

In that same interview she cited a Seinfeld episode as evidence of inter-racial couples having a chip on their shoulder. Her intelligence is vastly overrated.

[LnGrrrR]

Other hilarious Ann Coulter quips:



We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.




While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.




Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.



"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"


"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."


"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."


"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."


"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."


"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

[LnGrrrR]

Whichever way you slice it, Coulter either is or portrays a bombastic, bloodthirsty, homophobic, racist persona.

[DarrinS]

She addressed the issue head-on. He went off about birthers, lost elections, and the stimulus.


Coulter - 1
Carville - 0

[Shastafarian]

She addressed the issue head-on. He went off about birthers, lost elections, and the stimulus.


Coulter - 1
Carville - 0

I didn't realize we were keeping score.

[DarrinS]

Those statements were directly relevant to the question. He was asked about the effect of those people in townhall forums to Obama's influence. That was his response. If the question was about the direct issue, rather than the townhall forum influence his response would be different.

The title of the video is "Ann Coulter and James Carville dissect the protests over Obama's plan."

:rolleyes



Is that why the host had to guide him off of his tangent and back to the subject at hand?


For the record, I don't even like Coulter, but she can wipe the floor with that skeleton.

[Shastafarian]

Scoring this a "win" for Coulter because Carville talked about other issues is like disqualifying a 4 year old from a coloring tournament for going outside the lines.

[doobs]

Scoring this a "win" for Coulter because Carville talked about other issues is like disqualifying a 4 year old from a coloring tournament for going outside the lines.

You can put a rattlesnake on a rollercoaster . . .

[101A]

That's a straw man if I ever saw one. Since Ann went to Cornell and I would like to presume she obtained better vocabulary than what she said. Perfected is a real ambiguous term to use in that situation and it has more often been used in prejudiced social situations...mainly the eugenics movement. I would expect someone supposedly highly intellectual to have better wording for all the criticizing she does for others comments (and wording)

Here is the transcript (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html)


I think my recollection of that episode is pretty accurate; but, I guess the word "perfected" is too heated to get beyond; obviously the host stopped listening at that point - most people did, apparently.

Also, I'm not a Coulter fan; that's really the only thing she's ever done I paid attention to.

[SonOfAGun]

Man I used to love Carville when I was a kid. That accent is the bomb.

As I grow older I see him for what he is though. :depressed

[da_suns_fan]

Some people are really stretching here. Carville wanted to just read his talking points about how AWESOME the democrats are and how stupid the protestors are.

Coulter talked about the issue at hand and the host seemed to agree that she was making sense. Then Carville got PISSED!

[101A]

Man I used to love Carville when I was a kid. That accent is the bomb.

As I grow older I see him for what he is though. :depressed

I saw Carville and Matalin last year giving a joint lecture; they were both very good, humorous, etc....

What was most striking was during the question and answer, the "questioners" including professors and especially students were WAY out of their league in the micro debates with either professional on stage. Either of the Politicos simply undressed the amateurs; wish I could remember specifics; it was fun.

[Wild Cobra]

I hate it when people just quote something without source material. Because of that, I sourced some of these quotes, for context. LnGrrrR, are you proud to post what amounts to propaganda when you fail to source it and in context?
While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.

---and---

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.Aren't the two above here a fact? Liberals always protect the enemy!

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"I've seen a good explaination on this. I really wish you would source the Coulter quotes. Without context, you can make anyone look bad. I believe this is out of one of her books I have. Wish the material you quote had root sources, but then again, propaganda doesn't work when you make access the truth.

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."Out of context:
Ann Coulter: “But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So, I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna’ say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” (ABC, Good Morning America, June 25.) She was joking that not to be criticized by the media, she had to make statements like liberals do.

"We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."I agree with executing him.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."How about a bit more of it:
Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.The above makes more sense if you read the entire article:

This Is War (http://web.archive.org/web/20010914225811/http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml)

"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."Let's look at the paragraph before and after that remark:
On the op-ed page of The New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: "I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the 'Barberini Faun' is credentialed?"

Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter.

But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification"). Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass — even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public editor will get right on Dowd's deception.)

Source: [URL=http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=43]REPUBLICANS, BLOGGERS AND GAYS, OH MY!
by Ann Coulter
February 23, 2005

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration
On this above example, she is talking about only the specific women she dubbed "The Jersey Girls." Here's a partial transcript of an interview after that:
Coulter: This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 Commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.

Lauer: So grieve but grieve quietly?

Coulter: No, the story is an attack on the nation. That requires a foreign policy response.

Lauer: By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration.

Coulter: Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no.

Lauer: Yeah they have.

Coulter: Oh no, no, no, no, no. They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.

Lauer: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?

Coulter: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don't put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.

Lauer: Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them.

Coulter: Yeah, I did.

Lauer: So, in other words.

Coulter: That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson. No, no, no. You can't respond. It's their doctrine of infallibility. Have someone else make the argument then.

Lauer: What I'm saying is, I don't think they have ever told you, you can't respond.

Coulter: Look, you are getting testy with me.

Lauer: No. I think it's a dramatic statement. "These broads are millionaires stalked by grief-parrazies"? "I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much."

Coulter: Yes, they are all over the news.

So too, unfortunately, is Ann Coulter.

[Jacob1983]

You have to give it up to Coulter. She may be a nut but she's confident in her beliefs and opinions. She never backs down from them. It's always funny to see the sexual tension between her and Bill Maher when he has her on his show.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You have to give it up to Coulter. She may be a nut but she's confident in her beliefs and opinions. She never backs down from them. It's always funny to see the sexual tension between her and Bill Maher when he has her on his show.
ha. coulter is more of a man then maher.

[SonOfAGun]

I saw Carville and Matalin last year giving a joint lecture; they were both very good, humorous, etc....

What was most striking was during the question and answer, the "questioners" including professors and especially students were WAY out of their league in the micro debates with either professional on stage. Either of the Politicos simply undressed the amateurs; wish I could remember specifics; it was fun.

Yeah, when I first saw Carville he was always joking around and having fun with it.

This past year he always appears angry and is nothing more than a broken record democratic billboard.

[LnGrrrR]

I hate it when people just quote something without source material. Because of that, I sourced some of these quotes, for context.

Even with the source material, these quotes stand on their face as being obviously designed to be divisive. Do you really think it's true that all liberals try to bring down America? If so, then don't expect any quarter when liberals paint conservatives as knuckledragging racist inbred hicks.

The point of the 'old Arab' remark is not about press passes for Maureen Dowd. The fact is that she was using racism to make a point. Even an ARAB person can get a press pass (arab being code for terrorist/undesirable person.)

My point about the 'war' quote is that MOST people will disagree that America should carpet-bomb enemies, as it goes against most of the rules of war (force only as much as needed, avoiding innocent casualties, etc etc). However, she is happy to kill millions of innocents, without even so much as a seeming second thought. This is even worse when we are not at war with a COUNTRY, but with a group of individuals within the country. Tell me, if a rogue terrorist cell in America attacked France, would you be ok with France carpetbombing us? I doubt it.

I don't see how you can add any context to the idea that women=stupid voters.

Saying you agree with an execution for a valid reason is not the same as saying you agree with an execution in order to intimidate a group of people that weren't tangibly involved.

Oh, and the final bit you posted? That pretty much sums up my point. Matt Lauer owns her thoughout the whole thing. She plays hard and loose with the facts, and it burns her. What about the whole Canadian brouhaha? Yet another episode where she made a fool of herself, and self-righteously stuck to her guns, compounding the issue.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, when I first saw Carville he was always joking around and having fun with it.

This past year he always appears angry and is nothing more than a broken record democratic billboard.

Carville sucks too. He's ok at certain tactics, but his strategy is old and outdated.

[jack sommerset]

I thought that was weak. Carville bullshit made it really weak. Meaning avoiding the subject and attempting to get people to talk about birthers and trying to tell us all republicans are dumb...again. This political message is fucking OLD. Talk policies and let the Americans decide.

[Wild Cobra]

Even with the source material, these quotes stand on their face as being obviously designed to be divisive.
That's her style, and she makes news and money that way.

Do you really think it's true that all liberals try to bring down America? If so, then don't expect any quarter when liberals paint conservatives as knuckledragging racist inbred hicks.Try to, no. Part of her points, if you ever took the time to read her works, is that people unwittingly do support the destruction of America, by being uninformed, and advocating what appears to be good things.

The point of the 'old Arab' remark is not about press passes for Maureen Dowd. The fact is that she was using racism to make a point. Even an ARAB person can get a press pass (arab being code for terrorist/undesirable person.)Really? I though she was referring to Helen Thomas' defense of radical muslin's. What makes you think otherwise? To me it's like calling Senator Dick Durbin, "Turban Durbin."

My point about the 'war' quote is that MOST people will disagree that America should carpet-bomb enemies, as it goes against most of the rules of war (force only as much as needed, avoiding innocent casualties, etc etc). However, she is happy to kill millions of innocents, without even so much as a seeming second thought. This is even worse when we are not at war with a COUNTRY, but with a group of individuals within the country. Tell me, if a rogue terrorist cell in America attacked France, would you be ok with France carpetbombing us? I doubt it.
I forget what her point was here. Not going to look it up either. We are at least being too nice in this war on terror. We need to do more than we have.


I don't see how you can add any context to the idea that women=stupid voters.I'm not even going to explain that in it's entirety, I forget must of it. She has a long chapter in one of her books about that. I disagree with eliminating women from the voting process, but her points are astounding. I think it was more to make women aware that they need to put their emotions aside when voting.
Saying you agree with an execution for a valid reason is not the same as saying you agree with an execution in order to intimidate a group of people that weren't tangibly involved.Really? Execution as a deterrent isn't acceptable for you?

Oh, and the final bit you posted? That pretty much sums up my point. Matt Lauer owns her thoughout the whole thing. She plays hard and loose with the facts, and it burns her. What about the whole Canadian brouhaha? Yet another episode where she made a fool of herself, and self-righteously stuck to her guns, compounding the issue.
How did he own her? She was factual. I think you don't understand her points. She makes perfect sense.

What Canadian brouhaha?

Lauer interview (http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/coulter911.320.240.mov)

[LnGrrrR]

How did he own her? She was factual. I think you don't understand her points. She makes perfect sense.

What Canadian brouhaha?

Lauer interview (http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/coulter911.320.240.mov)

In the interview you posted, Coulter said that they were putting on an air that conservatives weren't "allowed to respond", or were prevented from responding, and then admitted moments later that obviously she COULD and DID respond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McKeown

Coulter tried to claim that Canadians sent troops to Vietnam, when they did not. Of course, she tried to cover it up later by saying that 10,000 troops came over to the states to enlist, but that's nowhere near the same as the government sending troops over.

Finally, the idea that every liberal proposal is somehow tied to taking America down is as laughable as the idea that every conservative idea will do the same. The ability to see failure in everything one group does is a dangerous blind spot to have.

People keep saying we need to "do more".... what is "more"? Is it carpet bombing? Dropping a nuke? I'm sure that will really stop terrorist recruitment, whose most effective tactic is to paint us as the bad guy.

You calling someone 'turban Derbin' could also be considered racist. Not everyone with a turban is a terrorist, right? What if Helen Thomas supposed Israel, and Coulter called her "that old Jew"? Could you not see the negative connotations?

You didn't understand my execution comment. Coulter's statement would be the same as if I said, "I hope they execute Timothy McVeigh in order to physically intimdate conservatives." It paints all conservatives as terrorists/terrorist sympathizers, which obviously is untrue.

[Wild Cobra]

In the interview you posted, Coulter said that they were putting on an air that conservatives weren't "allowed to respond", or were prevented from responding, and then admitted moments later that obviously she COULD and DID respond.She made the point in her book that in responding to these people, you become a target. In this case, she became the target. The left's tactics of slander and intimidation is what she was referring to. The left doesn't let you respond like she does without their wrath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McKeown

Coulter tried to claim that Canadians sent troops to Vietnam, when they did not. Of course, she tried to cover it up later by saying that 10,000 troops came over to the states to enlist, but that's nowhere near the same as the government sending troops over.from your link:
Although no uniformed Canadian troops were involved in war, Canada did participate through counterinsurgency efforts in South Vietnam and reconnaissance for US bombing runs in North Vietnam.Cover it up? Are you saying Canadians did not volunteer? I agree. She was wrong. It was more like 30,000 Canadians that served (http://archives.cbc.ca/war_conflict/vietnam_war/topics/1413/):

Vietnam may have been America's war but Canada was heavily involved — for and against. Canada harboured American draft dodgers and helped supervise ceasefires. But at the same time, about 30,000 Canadians volunteered to fight in southeast Asia. And there was Canada's involvement in secret missions, weapons testing and arms production. CBC Archives looks at Canada's role in the Vietnam War.
Finally, the idea that every liberal proposal is somehow tied to taking America down is as laughable as the idea that every conservative idea will do the same. The ability to see failure in everything one group does is a dangerous blind spot to have.Of course she doesn't mean every liberal idea, but yes, most of them.


People keep saying we need to "do more".... what is "more"? Is it carpet bombing? Dropping a nuke? I'm sure that will really stop terrorist recruitment, whose most effective tactic is to paint us as the bad guy.
Yes, someone will spin it that way. especially our own mainstream media.

You calling someone 'turban Derbin' could also be considered racist. Not everyone with a turban is a terrorist, right? What if Helen Thomas supposed Israel, and Coulter called her "that old Jew"? Could you not see the negative connotations?Bullshit. It's tagging him to his protecting radical Islamics. Not painting him as racist.


You didn't understand my execution comment. Coulter's statement would be the same as if I said, "I hope they execute Timothy McVeigh in order to physically intimidate conservatives." It paints all conservatives as terrorists/terrorist sympathizers, which obviously is untrue.
Wasn't John Walker Lindh protected by liberal pundits? Did any c oncervative pundit try to protect Timothy McVeigh? Your spin can be amusing, or are you being ignorant? How about replacing the word conservative with "domestic terrorist." in your example.

Conservative my ass. There you go repeating propaganda again. He voted for Harry Browne in 1996. We really don't know his political feelings. He was registered a republican, but that doesn't mean shit. How many liberal republicans are there?

Thing is with Ann Coulter, on the spot, she sometimes mispeaks, and the pundits drool on that for years. Read her books sometime. She is very careful to get the facts strait, and very open with her opinion.

[ElNono]

LOL Coulter... partisan hack if I've ever seen one...
No wonder their local peers on the board are quick to jump on her(his?) defense.

[Wild Cobra]

I knew if I looked long enough, I would find Coulter was right:

Operation Gallant (http://www.acc-vac.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group06/icmvn):
Canada contributed 240 Canadian Forces personnel and 50 officials from the Department of External Affairs. The ICCS operated until 30 April 1975, two years after the Canadians withdrew.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL Coulter... partisan hack if I've ever seen one...
No wonder their local peers on the board are quick to jump on her(his?) defense.Hacks like you dismiss her.

I dare you to disprove something in one of her books.

[ElNono]

Hacks like you dismiss her.

I dare you to disprove something in one of her books.

I can't read right wing nuts. It's like you trying to watch an entire Michael Moore movie without bitching in the process.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't read right wing nuts. It's like you trying to watch an entire Michael Moore movie without bitching in the process.
Then how can an intelligent person make a claim like you did? Since when does ignorance = intelligence?

[ChumpDumper]

Hacks like you dismiss her.

I dare you to disprove something in one of her books.Ok, she claims in one of her books there is absolutely nothing in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution.

There is quite a bit in the fossil record that supports the theory of evolution.

Prove it beyond any doubt? No.

Support it? Certainly.

That was easy.

[ElNono]

Then how can an intelligent person make a claim like you did? Since when does ignorance = intelligence?

I've seen and heard enough of her to know she's a partisan hack. I don't need to read an entire book to know that. I don't need to read your entire next book to know you're exactly the same.
I don't like partisan hacks, left or right.
When the entire argument on a problem gets reduced to wether you're from the left or you're from the right, and you end up analyzing the other's side way of thinking more than the problem itself, then we've already lost.
Sure, it's controversial and probably what sold her some books and made her some money, but it really leaves nothing for anybody else (except the sheep like you, I guess).

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, she claims in one of her books there is absolutely nothing in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution.

There is quite a bit in the fossil record that supports the theory of evolution.

Prove it beyond any doubt? No.

Support it? Certainly.

That was easy.
First, how can a fossil record support evolution? I think she probably made a safe statement. It is theory, nothing more.

Godless page 215-216:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0438-25pct.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0439-25pct.jpg

I think I'll leave it at the two pages. Copyright reasons. But the book for more. She makes compelling articles and references several people and works.

Just looking up evolution in the index, it covers several pages:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0440-25pct.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

First, how can a fossil record support evolution? I think she probably made a safe statement. It is theory, nothing more.Right. Theories can be supported by evidence.

There is evidence in the fossil record that can be used to support the theory of evolution.

Hence, the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.

That was easy.

If you still don't understand, that's not my problem.

[LnGrrrR]

She made the point in her book that in responding to these people, you become a target. In this case, she became the target. The left's tactics of slander and intimidation is what she was referring to. The left doesn't let you respond like she does without their wrath.

Wait wait... you're saying COULTER has a problem with the left's tactics of slander and intimidation? Really? COULTER has a problem with slander?



from your link:Cover it up? Are you saying Canadians did not volunteer? I agree. She was wrong. It was more like 30,000 Canadians that served (http://archives.cbc.ca/war_conflict/vietnam_war/topics/1413/):

Yes, but that doesn't mean that 'Canadian troops were sent over there'. It would be like if Canada went to war, a bunch of Americans joined up to help, and then it was said that the United States went to war. It's not the same thing.

They did help out in counterops, and materials and whatnot, but it's not like they sent a large amount of troops, as Coulter is obviously implying.


Yes, someone will spin it that way. especially our own mainstream media.Bullshit. It's tagging him to his protecting radical Islamics. Not painting him as racist.

Ah, so it would be perfectly acceptable in today's society to put down someone who believed in affirmative action the same way? For instance, let's say a hypothetical African-American representative named Mr. Smith believes in affirmative action. Would it be alright to call him, "Watermelon eating" Rep. Smith or "Bling blinging" Rep Smith or any other racially minded term? How about if we put "big nose" in front of a hypothetical Rep Goldstein, or even "yamika"? How would that go over?


Wasn't John Walker Lindh protected by liberal pundits? Did any c oncervative pundit try to protect Timothy McVeigh? Your spin can be amusing, or are you being ignorant? How about replacing the word conservative with "domestic terrorist." in your example.

Because the statement implies that 1) American citizens forfeit their rights if captured as a terrorist without it first being proven and 2) that all liberals support terrorists. Obviously, both of those are not true.

It'd be saying something like, "Conservatives like brutal dictators" because some of them wrote things like this:

http://acuf.org/issues/issue75/070108news.asp

http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/pinochet-s-demonization-exemplifies-propaganda-s-power.html



Conservative my ass. There you go repeating propaganda again. He voted for Harry Browne in 1996. We really don't know his political feelings. He was registered a republican, but that doesn't mean shit. How many liberal republicans are there?

Of COURSE it's a bullshit statement. That's my whole point. Just because one or two crazy liberals defend or even DO something does not mean all liberals agree or are crazy; just because one or two crazy conservatives defend or even DO something that does not mean all conservatives agree or are crazy.

[LnGrrrR]

I knew if I looked long enough, I would find Coulter was right:

Operation Gallant (http://www.acc-vac.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group06/icmvn):

Actually, no.

Her WHOLE POINT was that Canada helped in Vietnam, and did not help in Iraq, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War



The Canadian and American militaries operate closely together, and the Chrétien government permitted a number of Canadians Forces members to actively serve in Iraq. Despite Canada's official position to stay out of Iraq, Canada, in fact, was contributing forces[8] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-7):
On March 31, 2003, Maclean's (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Maclean%27s) reported that "in February [2003], Canada took command of the multinational naval group, known as Task Force 151, patrolling the Persian Gulf (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Persian_Gulf) region. Canada is deploying three frigates in the area and the destroyer HMCS Iroquois (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/HMCS_Iroquois_(DDH_280)) is en route. In addition to 30 Canadian Forces (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Canadian_Forces) personnel working at the U.S. Central Command (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/U.S._Central_Command) in Qatar (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Qatar), there are 150 Canadian troops on exchange with U.S. and British forces in the area who could see action."[9] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-8)
Canada allowed its NORAD (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command) stationed Air Force members to fly combat missions and deploy with the USAF E-3 AWACS (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/E-3_Sentry) during the war and allowed its exchange officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force to deploy and fight with their US units. 40-50 Canadian Military Members participated in the conflict, the majority flying on the E-3 AWACS, based out of Tinker AFB, OK (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Tinker_Air_Force_Base), where they are stationed as part of NORAD.
On October 9, 2008, the CBC (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation) published this statement[10] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-9):

"Chrétien was attacked by opposition parties for hypocrisy, and asked to bring the exchange officers home. Chrétien's response was that those officers weren't involved in direct conflict, and that Canada had to honour its commitments. But in their book, The Unexpected War [11] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-10), University of Toronto (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/University_of_Toronto) professor Janice Gross Stein (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Janice_Gross_Stein) and public policy consultant Eugene Lang write that the Liberal (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada) government would actually boast of that contribution to Washington. "In an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateral-ism and support for the United Nations (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/United_Nations). At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department or the Pentagon (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Pentagon) who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq — three ships and 100 exchange officers — exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition.""[12] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-11)[13] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-12)


The only reason she brought up that Canada sent troops to Vietnam was to show contrast with her belief that they had done more for us in Vietnam than they had for us in Iraq. So she was wrong, after all.

[ChumpDumper]

Why should Canada have ever done anything for us in Iraq?

[Yonivore]

LnGrrrR, you lost me when you equated affirmative action with radical Islamists.

If affirmative action proponents were an existential threat to our country and they all belonged to one racial or cultural group; yeah, I'd say derogation would be fine with me.

[LnGrrrR]

First, how can a fossil record support evolution? I think she probably made a safe statement. It is theory, nothing more.

Godless page 215-216:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0438-25pct.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0439-25pct.jpg

I think I'll leave it at the two pages. Copyright reasons. But the book for more. She makes compelling articles and references several people and works.

Just looking up evolution in the index, it covers several pages:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0440-25pct.jpg

Why do you believe THIS book WC? Where's your natural skepticism? Don't you think Ann Coulter might have reason to be less than truthful with the facts?

[LnGrrrR]

LnGrrrR, you lost me when you equated affirmative action with radical Islamists.

If affirmative action proponents were an existential threat to our country and they all belonged to one racial or cultural group; yeah, I'd say derogation would be fine with me.

I'm not equating the two as a means to say one cause is as bad/equal to the other.

What I'm saying is that using a visual image of an Arab (a turban) in a derogatory manner is offensive.

Obviously, not all people who wear turbans are terrorists, and not all terrorists wear turbans. But it's a stereotype, and it puts across the fear that all Arabs are to be distrusted. It'd be like putting "taco-loving" in front of the name of someone who supported illegal immigration amnesty.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you believe THIS book WC? Where's your natural skepticism? Don't you think Ann Coulter might have reason to be less than truthful with the facts?Nobody yet has been able to discredit her work with facts, except for real minor things.

Please. Disprove something she has written.

[Yonivore]

I'm not equating the two as a means to say one cause is as bad/equal to the other.

What I'm saying is that using a visual image of an Arab (a turban) in a derogatory manner is offensive.

Obviously, not all people who wear turbans are terrorists, and not all terrorists wear turbans. But it's a stereotype, and it puts across the fear that all Arabs are to be distrusted. It'd be like putting "taco-loving" in front of the name of someone who supported illegal immigration amnesty.
And, I'm saying I don't care if we offend Islamic extremists.

[LnGrrrR]

Nobody yet has been able to discredit her work with facts, except for real minor things.

Please. Disprove something she has written.

Does it have to be just written?



In an interview with Bob McKeown (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Bob_McKeown) on the January 26, 2005, edition of the The Fifth Estate (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/The_Fifth_Estate), Coulter came under criticism for her statement: "Canada (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Canada) used to be...one of our most...most loyal friends, and vice versa. I mean, Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Saddam_Hussein)?" McKeown contradicted her with, "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."[45] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-fifth_estate-44) On the February 18, 2005, edition of Washington Journal (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Washington_Journal), Coulter justified her statement by referring to the thousands of Canadians who served in the American armed forces during the Vietnam era, either because they volunteered or because they were living in the USA during the war years and got drafted (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Conscription). She said, "The Canadian Government didn't send troops [...] but [...] they came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong. It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada." (Between 5,000 and 20,000 Canadians fought in Vietnam itself, including approximately 80 who were killed.).[46] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-vvic-45) John Cloud of Time, writing about the incident a few months later, said "Canada [sent] noncombat troops to Indochina (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Indochina) in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972".[5] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-msright-4)


Hehe. Couldn't resist.

Some other cases:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/10/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-wrong-about-sotomayor-unsigned-opinion/

http://www.leftinalabama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=518

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/ann-coulter-wrong-on-illegitimacy-rates-by-david-r-usher/

Oh and here she's wrong about where to vote...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/15/ann-coulter-votes-in-the-_n_15738.html

[LnGrrrR]

And, I'm saying I don't care if we offend Islamic extremists.

As in the above example, you're probably offending EVERYONE who wears a turban. Which is, ya know, not a 'terrorist-related' item, but an Arabic one.

In the same vein, there's a reason why the word "spearchucker" is offensive to people that might not throw spears.

[Wild Cobra]

Does it have to be just written?



Hehe. Couldn't resist.

Some other cases:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/10/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-wrong-about-sotomayor-unsigned-opinion/

http://www.leftinalabama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=518

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/ann-coulter-wrong-on-illegitimacy-rates-by-david-r-usher/

Oh and here she's wrong about where to vote...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/15/ann-coulter-votes-in-the-_n_15738.htmlYou know, I'm starting to get rather upset at your laziness. How about comparing those other people's statements to source articles, or are you just a good little lemming?

[LnGrrrR]

You know, I'm starting to get rather upset at your laziness. How about comparing those other people's statements to source articles, or are you just a good little lemming?

Hey, you just asked for times where she was wrong.

Tell me WC, do you HONESTLY fact check every book you read, and then fact check the other sources? What about those sources? Can you trust those sources as well?

I can keep gain-saying each of your sources as much as I want as well. Who does Coulter rely on for sources? Do you trust the sources SHE'S using as well?

[ElNono]

Hey, you just asked for times where she was wrong.

Tell me WC, do you HONESTLY fact check every book you read, and then fact check the other sources? What about those sources? Can you trust those sources as well?

I can keep gain-saying each of your sources as much as I want as well. Who does Coulter rely on for sources? Do you trust the sources SHE'S using as well?

You're intellectually dishonest, like a good lefty...
Watch it spin that way... Ann Coulter style...

[hope4dopes]

I'm not equating the two as a means to say one cause is as bad/equal to the other.

What I'm saying is that using a visual image of an Arab (a turban) in a derogatory manner is offensive.

Obviously, not all people who wear turbans are terrorists, and not all terrorists wear turbans. But it's a stereotype, and it puts across the fear that all Arabs are to be distrusted. It'd be like putting "taco-loving" in front of the name of someone who supported illegal immigration amnesty.

Or it would be like calling people that think that our immigration laws should be enforced.....racist,and extremists.
or it would be like calling someone who is pro-life an extremist.
Or it would be like calling someone who believes the 2nd admendment is a personal right, a right this nation has recognized for over two hundred years as a personal right... it would be like calling them an extremist
It would be like calling returning vetrans potentail terrorists.
It would be like calling cornerend citizens "crazed mobs" or shills for the insurance companies .Or shwaztika totting nazis
It would be like calling cops doing their jobs stupid
You can see how ridiculous it looks when you or other liberals try to peddle your apoligist nosense off, and people doubt your motives, or your sensitive little hearts.
You call coulter divissive, are you serious.....we have a president who suckled at the tit of a hate mongering racist and anti semite like the Rev. Wright for 20 years, and your concerned about "turban Durban".
We have a president who nominates bettle browed racist thugs to the supreme court and Coulter's divisivness and sterotypes bother you?
We have a president who asks citizens to turn in the names of political dissenters, something no head of any republic to my knowledge has ever done, and is most likely illegal to boot. and you see Ann Coulter as a threat.

I don't think Ann Coulter gives a shit about what the left think of her.I think that she may have come to the conclusion that her political views are "verboten" and have made her and millions of others like minded people Persona Non grata and they are more intersested in educating and organizing each other and action than apology.

[LnGrrrR]

Hopes4Dopes, you completely misunderstood. Read it again, and try to comprehend.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Or it would be like calling people that think that our immigration laws should be enforced.....racist,and extremists.
or it would be like calling someone who is pro-life an extremist.
Or it would be like calling someone who believes the 2nd admendment is a personal right, a right this nation has recognized for over two hundred years as a personal right... it would be like calling them an extremist
It would be like calling returning vetrans potentail terrorists.
It would be like calling cornerend citizens "crazed mobs" or shills for the insurance companies .Or shwaztika totting nazis
It would be like calling cops doing their jobs stupid
You can see how ridiculous it looks when you or other liberals try to peddle your apoligist nosense off, and people doubt your motives, or your sensitive little hearts.
You call coulter divissive, are you serious.....we have a president who suckled at the tit of a hate mongering racist and anti semite like the Rev. Wright for 20 years, and your concerned about "turban Durban".
We have a president who nominates bettle browed racist thugs to the supreme court and Coulter's divisivness and sterotypes bother you?
We have a president who asks citizens to turn in the names of political dissenters, something no head of any republic to my knowledge has ever done, and is most likely illegal to boot. and you see Ann Coulter as a threat.

I don't think Ann Coulter gives a shit about what the left think of her.I think that she may have come to the conclusion that her political views are "verboten" and have made her and millions of others like minded people Persona Non grata and they are more intersested in educating and organizing each other and action than apology.

she's smart enough to know there are enough dupes out there to sell liberal bashing books..she has got a nice niche. all she has to do write a coloring book that bashes libs and the dead enders rush out to buy it...

[Wild Cobra]

SO MUCH FOR WISE LATINAS; July 1, 2009 (http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=319)
Obama's Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion -- the judicial equivalent of "talk to the hand." She upheld the city's race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen on the grounds that the test had a "disparate impact" on blacks, meaning that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacksSneaky, because no extensive opinion writing was made. Unsigned, because it was the proper term.

IS THERE A TRIAL LAWYER IN THE HOUSE? September 19, 2007 (http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=208). In this piece, she is talking about Trial Lawyers. Read the parts of the article before she states:
In college, my roommate was in the chemistry lab Friday and Saturday nights while I was dancing on tables at the Chapter House. A few years later, she was working 20-hour days as a resident at Mount Sinai doing liver transplants while I was frequenting popular Upper East Side drinking establishments. She was going to Johns Hopkins for yet more medical training while I was skiing and following the Grateful Dead. Now she vacations in places like Rwanda and Darfur with Doctors Without Borders while I'm going to Paris.

(Has anyone else noticed the nonexistence of a charitable organization known as "Lawyers Without Borders"?)

She makes $380 for an emergency appendectomy, or one-ten-thousandth of what John Edwards made suing doctors like her, and one-fourth of what John Edwards' hairdresser makes for a single shag cut. Lawyers without Borders is a new group since 2000 that she likely wasn't aware of when she was making a satirical point. Besides, they are not type to fit the context of what she was saying.

GOODBYE, AMERICA! IT WAS FUN WHILE IT LASTED; February 11, 2009 (http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=297)

Read this article and compare the two articles different facts. Coulter was addressing welfare cases. The article you link includes all mothers. This last decade, couples think nothing of it not to get married and plan for children. They are not the people Coulter is talking about. Also, I remember the changes in 1996. Although not directly discourages, there were changes in the law that reduced unwanted pregnancies.

As for the Vote Fraud, she was cleared. Why? Because she didn't do anything intentionally wrong. One allegation is that you cannot be registered in two places. I don't recall ever revoking a registration one place when moving. The system is suppose to remove the other one, right? When she bought the place in Florida, she used her Realtors address for some reason on her application. She probably got the addresses mixed up. Then of course, she voted in precinct by listed address even though it was the wrong precinct. She voted using the absentee ballot given to her while in NY. There was no intent to commit any type of fraud, and was a mistake anyone could make when moving.

[Wild Cobra]

You're intellectually dishonest, like a good lefty...
Watch it spin that way... Ann Coulter style...


Hey, you just asked for times where she was wrong.

Tell me WC, do you HONESTLY fact check every book you read, and then fact check the other sources? What about those sources? Can you trust those sources as well?

I can keep gain-saying each of your sources as much as I want as well. Who does Coulter rely on for sources? Do you trust the sources SHE'S using as well?I see you two were busy in other stuff while I did LnGrrrR's homework.

As for checking all facts, of course not. At least I don't continue to make posts without an acceptable level of fact checking.

[hope4dopes]

Hopes4Dopes, you completely misunderstood. Read it again, and try to comprehend.

I'll take that as .....oops was my facisim showing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'll take that as .....oops was my facisim showing.

it's always showing..

[hope4dopes]

she's smart enough to know there are enough dupes out there to sell liberal bashing books..she has got a nice niche. all she has to do write a coloring book that bashes libs and the dead enders rush out to buy it...


George have you been trying to chew gum and walk at he same time again? You know what the doctor told you about that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

George have you been trying to chew gum and walk at he same time again? You know what the doctor told you about that.

how about admitting you are praising a plagiarist?

[hope4dopes]

how about admitting you are praising a plagerist?



yes.....yes...oh god I admit it, but have some sympathy not everyone has an intellect like yours.

[Shastafarian]

First, how can a fossil record support evolution? I think she probably made a safe statement. It is theory, nothing more.

Godless page 215-216:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0438-25pct.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0439-25pct.jpg

I think I'll leave it at the two pages. Copyright reasons. But the book for more. She makes compelling articles and references several people and works.

Just looking up evolution in the index, it covers several pages:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/IMGP0440-25pct.jpg
Wait, why should we base things on something so inherently flawed as the fossil record when talking about Evolution? Does she mention the Central Dogma at all in her book(s)? If not (and it wouldn't shock me) she's just being intellectually dishonest. We don't need fossils to see that Evolution is a pretty solid theory.

[George Gervin's Afro]

yes.....yes...oh god I admit it, but have some sympathy not everyone has an intellect like yours.

I figured you'd duck it. Go back to praising your plagiarism buddy...

[hope4dopes]

I figured you'd duck it. Go back to praising your plagiarism buddy...

Whoa .... missed that bullet.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Whoa .... missed that bullet.

No defense.... figures.Nice playing with you..a dishonest person praising a dishonest person.. you conservatives are to much..:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, why should we base things on something so inherently flawed as the fossil record when talking about Evolution? Does she mention the Central Dogma at all in her book(s)? If not (and it wouldn't shock me) she's just being intellectually dishonest. We don't need fossils to see that Evolution is a pretty solid theory.First off, she does not make any statement saying evolution isn't true. In fact, on page 199, she says:
Even if evolution were true, it wouldn't disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution. It's not even a daunting challenge to a belief in God. If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures.

Although Go believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic of the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.Now no one I have ever heard completely disregards evolution. Just that it cannot account for all but a few of the changes we see in nature.

[Shastafarian]

First off, she does not make any statement saying evolution isn't true. In fact, on page 199, she says:Now no one I have ever heard completely disregards evolution. Just that it cannot account for all but a few of the changes we see in nature.

It's funny how ridiculous that quote is. On what is she basing, "God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution"? A book? Instead of actual science like we base our theories on Evolution. God believers don't need ANYTHING to be false because they'll just claim God did it.

[Wild Cobra]

It's funny how ridiculous that quote is. On what is she basing, "God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution"? A book? Instead of actual science like we base our theories on Evolution. God believers don't need ANYTHING to be false because they'll just claim God did it.Careful, you'll fall into one of her traps. We acknowledge that believing in God is a "faith." As a faith, it is common to talk about as fact, however, we all know it's faith. One thing she points out is the liberals "faith in government." I could go on, but you should read what she says yourself.

[101A]

First off, she does not make any statement saying evolution isn't true. In fact, on page 199, she says:Now no one I have ever heard completely disregards evolution. Just that it cannot account for all but a few of the changes we see in nature.


Evolution?

Evolution is true; it happens; it IS verifiable. It is non debatable fact.

The part of Darwinism that is "theory" is "Natural Selection"; that is; WHY and HOW evolution occurs, not WHETHER evolution occurs.

[101A]

It's funny how ridiculous that quote is. On what is she basing, "God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution"? A book? Instead of actual science like we base our theories on Evolution. God believers don't need ANYTHING to be false because they'll just claim God did it.

...and non believer have to make just as extreme, or even more extreme, leaps of faith.

but that has been hashed and rehashed a billion times here.

[ElNono]

...and non believer have to make just as extreme, or even more extreme, leaps of faith.

but that has been hashed and rehashed a billion times here.

Not really. We all know Obama is the antichrist. :p:

[Wild Cobra]

Evolution?

Evolution is true; it happens; it IS verifiable. It is non debatable fact.

The part of Darwinism that is "theory" is "Natural Selection"; that is; WHY and HOW evolution occurs, not WHETHER evolution occurs.
You know, I should be more careful on the wording. It is "Darwinism" that is being attacked by Coulter, more than evolution. Specifically, that aspect of evolution.

Thanx.

[hope4dopes]

No defense.... figures.Nice playing with you..a dishonest person praising a dishonest person.. you conservatives are to much..:lmao

Wow G it's amazing just how stupid you really are. I'm sure during lulls at the jack in the box you work at you give insightfull political analyzes through jack's head.

[LnGrrrR]

I see you two were busy in other stuff while I did LnGrrrR's homework.

As for checking all facts, of course not. At least I don't continue to make posts without an acceptable level of fact checking.

Eh, you obviously can marshal more facts than I abot Coulter. :) it doesn't concern me enough to do a cursory search. As we both noted, she'll use divisive rhetoric on purpose, as well as saying things that are bound to inflame passion (like, ya know, carpetbomb and convert them to Christianity). That was my major point. And even when she gets something wrong, you're willing to apologize for her (oh, she probably didn't know that existed...)

As well, you still won't answer why you think the sources that Ann Coulter uses are relevant. Tell me, what's your DEFINITE proof that a source is correct? How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

[LnGrrrR]

I'll take that as .....oops was my facisim showing.

Wtf? Do you even know what fascism means?

You're so retarded, that even if I DID support terrorists, that would just go to show I was AGAINST fascism... how many facscist forms of government are there in which terrorists are permitted? Go ahead, try to actually THINK before answering with some trite stupidity.

[LnGrrrR]

...and non believer have to make just as extreme, or even more extreme, leaps of faith.

but that has been hashed and rehashed a billion times here.

Eh, either non-believers make one less leap of faith, or one of a much lesser degree, no matter how you view it.

Putting "God" in for the mathematical complexity it would take to create the universe does not mean the problem's solved. :)

[cornbread]

I'm no fan of Man Coulter but she owned Carville in that debate.

[Wild Cobra]

Eh, you obviously can marshal more facts than I abot Coulter. :) it doesn't concern me enough to do a cursory search. It helps that I have some of her books at hand and understand what she's saying, rather than repeating other people's propaganda.

As we both noted, she'll use divisive rhetoric on purpose, as well as saying things that are bound to inflame passion (like, ya know, carpetbomb and convert them to Christianity). That was my major point. It's something that gets her in the news enough that she sells her books more. It makes her money to be controversial.

And even when she gets something wrong, you're willing to apologize for her (oh, she probably didn't know that existed...)I was actually surprised at that find. She is seldom wrong about something she says. Still, the group that exists does not have the attributes she was claiming in a group of lawyers that didn't exist. She meant there was no charitable group of "Trial Lawyers" that gets guilty people off. She probaly just made the name up for illustrative purposes, and by coincidence, a group with that name existed. The group with that name has good intent. The example she portrayed does not exist. Call her wrong on that account if you wish. That's an insignificant detail to what she clearly meant.

As well, you still won't answer why you think the sources that Ann Coulter uses are relevant. Tell me, what's your DEFINITE proof that a source is correct? How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

As a matter of history, people have repeatedly tried to discredit her work. Nobody to date has been able to discredit the facts and sources she uses, to any relevant degree. You can easily giver her a better than 99% record on her facts. You can search for hours and fins a thing or two that has some merit, but they are trivial like the naming of footnote vs. endnote. Everything I have seen people say she was wrong about had to be skewed in some way to make that assessment. What you found on the naming of "Lawyers Without Borders" is about as far off the facts as I've ever seen anyone come up with on her writings. It was nothing more than a unlucky coincidence she was wrong, in that, she was still right in the point she was making.

How far am I willing to go? In written text alone, without context, not far. That's only because you have to parse her sense of humor too. When something she states as fact is given though, I believe it. She has that good of a record.

[Def Rowe]

Coulter is just a chatterbox. It's annoying how she slips in and out of that fake English accent. It just makes her look like even more of a scatterbrained elitist.

[LnGrrrR]

ItThat's an insignificant detail to what she clearly meant.

What of the implication that Canada helped more in Vietnam than Iraq? As you said, she may have been right about the fact that some Canadians helped in the war, but her overall contention was that Canada was more loyal during Vietnam.

However, as shown, Canada has not only sent troops to Iraq, but ships and other combat items.

Wouldn't this imply her overall contention is wrong?

[Jacob1983]

Why doesn't anyone ever talk shit about Carville's thick hillbilly accent? I've never understood that. People gave Bush shit about his accent and how that Bush was a horrible speaker. What about hillbilly Carville? Does he get a pass because he's a liberal and Democrat?

[Spawn]

Why doesn't anyone ever talk shit about Carville's thick hillbilly accent? I've never understood that. People gave Bush shit about his accent and how that Bush was a horrible speaker. What about hillbilly Carville? Does he get a pass because he's a liberal and Democrat?

Probably because he isn't the President of the United States. Not to mention that he is pretty much a nobody.

[Jacob1983]

Diss!

[Desert Plains]

Vg7IhR0ccgo
L8Uq7t4biJo

[LnGrrrR]

For some reason, it does seem that specific bayou/cajun accent is not looked down upon as 'stupid' while most of the other southern accents are. It's kinda odd.

[SonOfAGun]

I think it may be because Bayou/Cajun is so unique it is almost foreign, while deep woods Southern is just poor use of the English language :lol

[hope4dopes]

Wtf? Do you even know what fascism means?

You're so retarded, that even if I DID support terrorists, that would just go to show I was AGAINST fascism... how many facscist forms of government are there in which terrorists are permitted? Go ahead, try to actually THINK before answering with some trite stupidity. Iran

[hope4dopes]

Wtf? Do you even know what fascism means?

You're so retarded, that even if I DID support terrorists, that would just go to show I was AGAINST fascism... how many facscist forms of government are there in which terrorists are permitted? Go ahead, try to actually THINK before answering with some trite stupidity.

You know you're doing everything you can to play down, or deny the outrages of this regime, outrages that are getting millions active, and paint a legitamite face on a collection of some of the worst scoundrels this or any other nation has had to contend with, and guess what this hound just won't hunt.
People are not being lulled into a complacanet sleep or, silenced by threats of state power. To try and defend this, is to stand with it.

[LnGrrrR]

Iran

Oh really? Iran is a fascist regime? One that supports terrorism within their country?

Try again.

[LnGrrrR]

You know you're doing everything you can to play down, or deny the outrages of this regime, outrages that are getting millions active, and paint a legitamite face on a collection of some of the worst scoundrels this or any other nation has had to contend with, and guess what this hound just won't hunt.
People are not being lulled into a complacanet sleep or, silenced by threats of state power. To try and defend this, is to stand with it.

Wtf are you talking about? Honestly? Tell me where I've defended terrorism, anywhere, please.

Are you aware there is a difference between saying that turban=terrorists may be offensive to some and a poor choice of words, and actually supporting terrorism?

[Fabbs]

coulter is the better man
:lol good one.
Actually are either one of them human?