Drag Liberals Into The Light

[SmarterThanYou]

maybe you should do a little research on this board for conversations between you and DKSuddeth about mikey moore. Let me know how that humble pie tastes afterwards.

 

[007]

maybe you should do a little research on this board for conversations between you and DKSuddeth about mikey moore. Let me know how that humble pie tastes afterwards.

I'll make sure to do that DK... right after you do some research on this board about Pale Rider and Rush. I hope the pie I eat is the same flavor as yours.

Toying with people here has been one of the things you've done DK. You're doing it now. I won't continue this insignificant banter with you. We've done it before to no avail. There's no point. I know what you're about, and you know what I'm about. Let's leave it at that.

I'd like to know you as a veteran of the United States Marine Corps with guts and conviction, and not a pety arguer.

 

[IControlThePast]

When Ann walks into a room full of people, the liberal dems scatter like a pack of vampires avoiding the rays of the rising sun... a metaphore of course. But none the less, liberal dems hate her because she has an uncanny ability to describe them as the putrid scum they are.

Liberals hate her because she is extreme and inaccurate. If I accused you of being a rapist, you'd probably be upset, but it's not because I've exposed you for what you are. She is like the Mike Moore of the Republican Party. I neither like Coulter nor Moore.

I'd say not much chance dillo... if it's the "liberal" press you're asking about.

The fact that the libs are "idea shy" has been pointed out by quite a few people, but that point always seems to be avioded by the main stream media, hence the importance of our conservative bloggoshpere.

Thank you jimnyc.

If there is a "liberal press," it is awful stupid of the conservatives to have let it loose and let it stay loose. It was Reagan afterall who eliminated the Fairness Doctorine for controlling bias from the FCC.

How about the fact they they think Americans are too dumb to know how to handle thier money???????? What scare me is that so many Americans are going "yup doh---dat goverment kin handle my cash--dey be smart "

Here's a little Conservative phrase for you: You don't have to give the government your money. If you don't like or trust America you can mosey on down to Mexico .

But again, this fillibustering shit is all about religon... period. The liberals DO NOT want anyone who is a Christian to get on the bench. THAT would piss of their aclu pals, their unborn killing pals, their bigger government pals, their fags want to marry pals, and anyone else with an agenda that conflicts with the teachings of Christianity.

Or you know, maybe just anyone with an agenda that conflicts with the US Constitution regardless of their religion? Don't feel like a victim.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Liberals hate her because she is extreme and inaccurate. If I accused you of being a rapist, you'd probably be upset, but it's not because I've exposed you for what you are. She is like the Mike Moore of the Republican Party. I neither like Coulter nor Moore.

Please explain where Coulter is "extreme and inaccurate".

I know the liberals are really ticked off that Ann Coulter made the cover of Time Magazine. They think that Time did not give the real lowdown on Coulter. Here's the stuff they wanted exposed:

The liberal media watchdog group added that Coulter -- the author and Universal Press Syndicate columnist -- is someone who "claimed that the Democratic Party 'supports killing, lying, adultery, thievery, envy'; who said of the idea that the American military were targeting journalists, 'Would that it were so!'; who said President Clinton 'was a very good rapist'; who insisted that '[l]iberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole'; who said that 'I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days' to talk to liberals; who said it was lucky for former senator Max Cleland's political career that he lost an arm and two legs in Vietnam; who has said her 'only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times Building'; and who wrote that the only real question about Bill Clinton was 'whether to impeach or assassinate.'"
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000892840

Frankly, I can't see where Coulter is inaccurate with any of these statements. I think her style of being blunt only adds spice but what she says is obviously based in TRUTH. I believe that is what really makes the left so furious - they hate having the real truth exposed.

Moore's stuff is obviously based in UNTRUTHS and deceit but he is effective in pushing his agenda - which is what makes the right so furious about him.

It is the dummies in the middle who can't tell the difference between truth and untruth who call them both "extreme".

 

[Gem]

The liberal media watchdog group added that Coulter -- the author and Universal Press Syndicate columnist --

is someone who "claimed that the Democratic Party 'supports killing,

if you believe that abortion is killing a person then the Dem Party, which is strongly a pro-choice organization, DOES support killing

lying, adultery,

the dems stand firmly behind Clinton who lied and committed adultury...this is not inaccurate at all. thievery, envy taxing the rich and wealth distribution have firmly implanted the idea that the rich have something everyone else doesn't, and that they got it through unfair means, i.e. they are envious of wealth and want to take it from the wealthy[/B

]; who said of the idea that the American military were targeting journalists

Eason Jordan, of CNN said this publically, numerous dems expressed outrage when the conservatives demanded an apology and his resignation,

, 'Would that it were so!'; who said President Clinton 'was a very good rapist';

Juanita Broderick states quite firmly that Clinton raped her...no one seemed interested because Clinton was such a great guy

who insisted that '[l]iberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole'; who said that 'I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days' to talk to liberals; who said it was lucky for former senator Max Cleland's political career that he lost an arm and two legs in Vietnam;

while a disgustingly blunt statement...one can not deny that Cleland has never shied away from the "war hero" image his injuries provide, even though his injuries were self-inflicted.

who has said her 'only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times Building'; and who wrote that the only real question about Bill Clinton was 'whether to impeach or assassinate.'"

Sorry...but the only thing that Coulter does is be perfectly and sometimes shockingly blunt about the problems she has with the democratic party and liberals in general. She does not "lie" about issues...she simply discusses them without mincing any words, and often using words that those in "polite society" wouldn't use.

Considering that the head of the Democratic National Convention has stated that he hates all Republicans and Conservatives and that they are evil....I think that all this "righteous indignation" over a pundit is a bit disingenuous....a bit? nevermind...its ludicrously disingenous.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

if you believe that abortion is killing a person then the Dem Party, which is strongly a pro-choice organization, DOES support killing the dems stand firmly behind Clinton who lied and committed adultury...this is not inaccurate at all. thievery, envy taxing the rich and wealth distribution have firmly implanted the idea that the rich have something everyone else doesn't, and that they got it through unfair means, i.e. they are envious of wealth and want to take it from the wealthy[/B Eason Jordan, of CNN said this publically, numerous dems expressed outrage when the conservatives demanded an apology and his resignation, Juanita Broderick states quite firmly that Clinton raped her...no one seemed interested because Clinton was such a great guy while a disgustingly blunt statement...one can not deny that Cleland has never shied away from the "war hero" image his injuries provide, even though his injuries were self-inflicted.

Sorry...but the only thing that Coulter does is be perfectly and sometimes shockingly blunt about the problems she has with the democratic party and liberals in general. She does not "lie" about issues...she simply discusses them without mincing any words, and often using words that those in "polite society" wouldn't use.

Considering that the head of the Democratic National Convention has stated that he hates all Republicans and Conservatives and that they are evil....I think that all this "righteous indignation" over a pundit is a bit disingenuous....a bit? nevermind...its ludicrously disingenous.

Thanks for laying out so much supporting proof Gem. I agree, Coulter does not "lie" and in dealing with liberals, she is not dealing with "polite society"...by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[IControlThePast]

Please explain where Coulter is "extreme and inaccurate".

I know the liberals are really ticked off that Ann Coulter made the cover of Time Magazine. They think that Time did not give the real lowdown on Coulter. Here's the stuff they wanted exposed:



Frankly, I can't see where Coulter is inaccurate with any of these statements. I think her style of being blunt only adds spice but what she says is obviously based in TRUTH. I believe that is what really makes the left so furious - they hate having the real truth exposed.

Moore's stuff is obviously based in UNTRUTHS and deceit but he is effective in pushing his agenda - which is what makes the right so furious about him.

It is the dummies in the middle who can't tell the difference between truth and untruth who call them both "extreme".

Well let me try my Ann Coulter impression of why Republicans are bad and maybe you'll understand:

Republicans are for having affairs and sex scandals (gingrich, o'reilly), killing (the war in Iraq), drug usage (Limbaugh, the failing war on drugs), premarital sex (choosing abstinence programs makes more people have sex than teacher safe sex), extortion and corruption (DeLay, putting more criminals in positions of power than any previous administration), against upward mobility (tax system), minorities (anti-affirmative action, Thurmond, Nixon, Bush's choice of Bob Jones to speak at), free choice (they are pro-abortion), and really just a bunch of extremist Nazi's redressed in the guise of the Church whose love of America amounts to calling stealing from the American people Capitalism.

Now are these accurate statements and reflective of what the Republican party really stands for? I don't think so, or support or believe in those statements I just made, but they are blunt, and as based in reality as Coulter's statements.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well let me try my Ann Coulter impression of why Republicans are bad and maybe you'll understand:

Republicans are for having affairs and sex scandals (gingrich, o'reilly), killing (the war in Iraq), drug usage (Limbaugh, the failing war on drugs), premarital sex (choosing abstinence programs makes more people have sex than teacher safe sex), extortion and corruption (DeLay, putting more criminals in positions of power than any previous administration), against upward mobility (tax system), minorities (anti-affirmative action, Thurmond, Nixon, Bush's choice of Bob Jones to speak at), free choice (they are pro-abortion), and really just a bunch of extremist Nazi's redressed in the guise of the Church whose love of America amounts to calling stealing from the American people Capitalism.

Now are these accurate statements and reflective of what the Republican party really stands for? I don't think so, or support or believe in those statements I just made, but they are blunt, and as based in reality as Coulter's statements.

Sorry man, but you just don't have her style...

Besides the liberals already say these things, so what's yer point?

 

[Gem]

IControl:

Republicans are for having affairs and sex scandals (gingrich, o'reilly), killing (the war in Iraq), drug usage (Limbaugh, the failing war on drugs), premarital sex (choosing abstinence programs makes more people have sex than teacher safe sex), extortion and corruption (DeLay, putting more criminals in positions of power than any previous administration), against upward mobility (tax system), minorities (anti-affirmative action, Thurmond, Nixon, Bush's choice of Bob Jones to speak at), free choice (they are pro-abortion), and really just a bunch of extremist Nazi's redressed in the guise of the Church whose love of America amounts to calling stealing from the American people Capitalism

Actually, numerous Democrats and Liberals say these things all the time...(for example, did you catch Howard Dean's oh-so-funny-and-not-a-bit-disrespectful-coke-snorting-routine when referring to Rush Limbaugh in front of a huge audience???).

The difference isn't that Coutler does it and no liberals do...the difference is that when liberals do it they don't get HALF the bad press or hype that people like Coulter does.

Its called a double-standard...Coulter is a lying witch, Dean is the head of the DNC....

 

[Bonnie]

IControl:



Actually, numerous Democrats and Liberals say these things all the time...(for example, did you catch Howard Dean's oh-so-funny-and-not-a-bit-disrespectful-coke-snorting-routine when referring to Rush Limbaugh in front of a huge audience???).

The difference isn't that Coutler does it and no liberals do...the difference is that when liberals do it they don't get HALF the bad press or hype that people like Coulter does.

Its called a double-standard...Coulter is a lying witch, Dean is the head of the DNC....

I did see that Gem and I also noticed how the liberal media largely ignored it. This is the head of the DNC acting like an asshole and he gets a pass. NO class!!

 

[IControlThePast]

Sorry man, but you just don't have her style...

Besides the liberals already say these things, so what's yer point?

I know I don't have her style. Ann Coulter is a very intelligent person who misuses her gift, and who I hope takes more time to write her articles than the two minutes I spent on that one.

So basically you are stepping away from defending Coulter, by saying liberals do it too? She is just an endless source of inflammatory rhetoric, and while on a superficial level it is entertaining to some (like Crossfire), but not to me. I'll admit there are quite a few Democrats saying similar things, and I'll be quick to critisize them like I did Mike Moore, but he is one of the only main public figures doing it. Dean is off his rocker as well, and don't think he got a pass on his enraged campaign speech exposing him for who he really is. People like Coulter and Moore take more flak than party chairmen because they are part of the media itself.

 

[Gem]

You don't think that Dean has gotten a pass of late?

I agree with you, he certainly got the brunt of media attention after his infamous speech...but Democrats and Republicans alike agree that that was more about the fact that Democrats realized they couldn't win with him, so they honed in on whatever they could to "assassinate" his potential candidacy as quickly as possible and slide back to Kerry.

What I am talking to are his statements since becoming head of the DNC...he has raged against conservatives, Republicans, Christians, calling them all sorts of hateful things...using rhetoric just as heated as Coulters...yet somehow the media hasn't really picked up on it...wonder why.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I know I don't have her style. Ann Coulter is a very intelligent person who misuses her gift, and who I hope takes more time to write her articles than the two minutes I spent on that one.

So basically you are stepping away from defending Coulter, by saying liberals do it too? She is just an endless source of inflammatory rhetoric, and while on a superficial level it is entertaining to some (like Crossfire), but not to me. I'll admit there are quite a few Democrats saying similar things, and I'll be quick to critisize them like I did Mike Moore, but he is one of the only main public figures doing it. Dean is off his rocker as well, and don't think he got a pass on his enraged campaign speech exposing him for who he really is. People like Coulter and Moore take more flak than party chairmen because they are part of the media itself.

I am not at all stepping away from defending Coulter. What she says is based in fact and said a whole lot better and with more intelligence and stylistic flair than anything the liberals say. What she says is based in TRUTH...and she is getting that truth out there for all to hear...that is why they hate her so much...and why they are attacking and trying to silence her.

Are you opposed to her because of her truth or just for her "inflammatory rhetoric"?
Frankly I like that she can dish it out in the unvarnished truth.
Too bad the libs can dish it out but can't take it.

So I think what you are saying...everybody needs to be "nicer"?
I'm sure Coulter would be nicer... if the liberals would be nicer first....

 

[IControlThePast]

You don't think that Dean has gotten a pass of late?

I agree with you, he certainly got the brunt of media attention after his infamous speech...but Democrats and Republicans alike agree that that was more about the fact that Democrats realized they couldn't win with him, so they honed in on whatever they could to "assassinate" his potential candidacy as quickly as possible and slide back to Kerry.

What I am talking to are his statements since becoming head of the DNC...he has raged against conservatives, Republicans, Christians, calling them all sorts of hateful things...using rhetoric just as heated as Coulters...yet somehow the media hasn't really picked up on it...wonder why.

Dean can spout some hateful rhetoric, but to tell you the truth I've stopped watching the news because it is so bad, and I get my info online now. I haven't seen anything lately, however, the articles I saw regarding Deans ascent to the chairmenship when that happened mentioned his hateful rhetoric. I don't know what he's said lately. There are several reasons I don't think the media has picked up on it if it has occured. First is that party chairmen are more obscure and don't enter modern culture often while Ann Coulter is continually publishing articles and books. The second is that there is a slight bias by the news towards whoever happens to be holding the power at that moment. Democrats happen to be second string to Republicans now in the presidency, house, and senate.

I am not at all stepping away from defending Coulter. What she says is based in fact and said a whole lot better and with more intelligence and stylistic flair than anything the liberals say. What she says is based in TRUTH...and she is getting that truth out there for all to hear...that is why they hate her so much...and why they are attacking and trying to silence her.

Are you opposed to her because of her truth or just for her "inflammatory rhetoric"?
Frankly I like that she can dish it out in the unvarnished truth.
Too bad the libs can dish it out but can't take it.

So I think what you are saying...everybody needs to be "nicer"?
I'm sure Coulter would be nicer... if the liberals would be nicer first....

Well my statements were based in fact as well while not being very truthful. You think whatever she says is better because you are a Republican. I can assure you there are quite a few more well written works of fiction out there by "liberal" artists than Ann Coulter.

She can't dish out the unvarnished truth. Nobody will. The unvarnished truth is comprised of only facts, and Ann Coulter's writing is anything but that. Was my characterization representative, truthful, while being based in truth?

I'm saying that everyone should cooperate and ostracize the extremists and spouters of inaccurate inflammatory rhetoric from each party. I'm "being nicer" first, although I'm not a liberal, and you still support Coulter, so maybe that is why liberals think that if they are nice their opposition won't be nice in return?

Don't think Coulter is some bastion of conservative values. She is intelligent, and an actor (who got feminization laryngoplasty surgery) who sells herself every day for power. You're just her audience and it is you that feed her. She probably couldn't get the same audience numbers if she targeted liberals, and her commitment goes as deep as supporting, in a show, whichever side will make her more bucks.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well my statements were based in fact as well while not being very truthful. You think whatever she says is better because you are a Republican. I can assure you there are quite a few more well written works of fiction out there by "liberal" artists than Ann Coulter.

She can't dish out the unvarnished truth. Nobody will. The unvarnished truth is comprised of only facts, and Ann Coulter's writing is anything but that. Was my characterization representative, truthful, while being based in truth?

I'm saying that everyone should cooperate and ostracize the extremists and spouters of inaccurate inflammatory rhetoric from each party. I'm "being nicer" first, although I'm not a liberal, and you still support Coulter, so maybe that is why liberals think that if they are nice their opposition won't be nice in return?

Don't think Coulter is some bastion of conservative values. She is intelligent, and an actor (who got feminization laryngoplasty surgery) who sells herself every day for power. You're just her audience and it is you that feed her. She probably couldn't get the same audience numbers if she targeted liberals, and her commitment goes as deep as supporting, in a show, whichever side will make her more bucks.

My oh my. Your hatred of Coulter goes much deeper than I thought. She must have struck a nerve. Please give an example where "The unvarnished truth is comprised of only facts, and Ann Coulter's writing is anything but that."

I hardly think that anyone is going to ostrasize either Coulter or Moore as each is pretty much the beating heart of their respective movements. Have you read any of their books to understand them better?

 

[IControlThePast]

My oh my. Your hatred of Coulter goes much deeper than I thought. She must have struck a nerve. Please give an example where "The unvarnished truth is comprised of only facts, and Ann Coulter's writing is anything but that."

I hardly think that anyone is going to ostrasize either Coulter or Moore as each is pretty much the beating heart of their respective movements. Have you read any of their books to understand them better?

The last paragraph was a reprisal of Coulter's style redirected at Coulter. Here's an easy pick for an inaccuracy in Slander: Coulter accuses Katie Couric of "berating Arlen Specter about (Anita) Hill 10 years after the hearings." But as the Webbies point out, Specter, not Couric, brought up Hill while promoting his book, and Couric asked him just one question: "You accused (Hill) of publicly, quote, 'Flat out perjury'. Any regrets?"

She has quite a lot of incorrect footnotes. Unvarnished truth would be only a list of facts with no analyzation, and we know Coulter just doesn't list fact after fact. She twists her facts. Coulter writes that the New York Times published an editorial criticizing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She continues, "He is called 'colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race traitor,' 'black snake,"' and so on. This gives the impression that those terms were used in the editorial, but they weren't. (They are attributed to Jocelyn Elders in a Playboy interview and Joseph Lowery if you bother to check the footnotes.)

Here's another example "most liberals support killing." Of the liberals I know, none do. They don't support Islam, they belong to Christian Churches, and attend. I've read some of Coulter, but I wasn't aware Moore had a book, but I have watched Bowling for Columbine and F9/11 and didn't like those.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The last paragraph was a reprisal of Coulter's style redirected at Coulter. Here's an easy pick for an inaccuracy in Slander: Coulter accuses Katie Couric of "berating Arlen Specter about (Anita) Hill 10 years after the hearings." But as the Webbies point out, Specter, not Couric, brought up Hill while promoting his book, and Couric asked him just one question: "You accused (Hill) of publicly, quote, 'Flat out perjury'. Any regrets?"

She has quite a lot of incorrect footnotes. Unvarnished truth would be only a list of facts with no analyzation, and we know Coulter just doesn't list fact after fact. She twists her facts. Coulter writes that the New York Times published an editorial criticizing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She continues, "He is called 'colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race traitor,' 'black snake,"' and so on. This gives the impression that those terms were used in the editorial, but they weren't. (They are attributed to Jocelyn Elders in a Playboy interview and Joseph Lowery if you bother to check the footnotes.)

Here's another example "most liberals support killing." Of the liberals I know, none do. They don't support Islam, they belong to Christian Churches, and attend. I've read some of Coulter, but I wasn't aware Moore had a book, but I have watched Bowling for Columbine and F9/11 and didn't like those.

And what exactly was incorrect about Coulter "accusing Katie Couric of "berating Arlen Specter about (Anita) Hill 10 years after the hearings." ?
Obviously that is exactly what Katie Couric did...why on earth would Katie bring up such old history in a current interview with Spector, especially referring to an old hot button like Anita Hill, unless she wished to push the button? Another typical example of biased liberal journalism where she was attempting to put Senator Specter (R-PA) in the worst light possible.

The footnotes issue is an old one with Ann Coulter. Liberals went through her books with a fine tooth comb attempting to trip her up but failed miserably. Since she actually based her books on facts (unlike Moore) she had TONS of footnotes backing up her assertions. They actually found very few mistakes, mostly just teensy editorial errors. Coulter has answered all the challeges about her books and the minor errors have been corrected. It must be obvious to you that Michael Moore has not done the same with his books (& films) - after all, he has very little in the way of footnotes backing up HIS assertions.

I laugh that you attack Coulter in the same breath with regard to The Old York Times. That newspaper is rife with biased reporting, anti-Thomas attacks, and all sorts of misrepresentations. Don't try to smear Coulter with the same brush. Don't even go there.

Liberals do support killing. You do know that liberals support abortion? That is a form of killing, isn't it? Liberals support euthanasia - that is also a form of killing, isn't it?

Your arguments against Coulter are very, very weak.

 

[IControlThePast]

And what exactly was incorrect about Coulter "accusing Katie Couric of "berating Arlen Specter about (Anita) Hill 10 years after the hearings." ?
Obviously that is exactly what Katie Couric did...why on earth would Katie bring up such old history in a current interview with Spector, especially referring to an old hot button like Anita Hill, unless she wished to push the button? Another typical example of biased liberal journalism where she was attempting to put Senator Specter (R-PA) in the worst light possible.

The footnotes issue is an old one with Ann Coulter. Liberals went through her books with a fine tooth comb attempting to trip her up but failed miserably. Since she actually based her books on facts (unlike Moore) she had TONS of footnotes backing up her assertions. They actually found very few mistakes, mostly just teensy editorial errors. Coulter has answered all the challeges about her books and the minor errors have been corrected. It must be obvious to you that Michael Moore has not done the same with his books (& films) - after all, he has very little in the way of footnotes backing up HIS assertions.

I laugh that you attack Coulter in the same breath with regard to The Old York Times. That newspaper is rife with biased reporting, anti-Thomas attacks, and all sorts of misrepresentations. Don't try to smear Coulter with the same brush. Don't even go there.

Liberals do support killing. You do know that liberals support abortion? That is a form of killing, isn't it? Liberals support euthanasia - that is also a form of killing, isn't it?

Your arguments against Coulter are very, very weak.

Berate means scold or condemn, which she didn't do, and also is something done at length, according to the dictionary. One question isn't something at length. Actually I am aware that Moore came up with a rebuttle to his critics for F9/11 on his website with the facts and sources, so make of that what you will. Maybe your views are clouding your perception?

Liberals don't support abortion. I know several religious liberals who are very much against it, but believe in free will and thus want to give women the right to choose. Liberals aren't for abortion technically, just the right to choose. I happen to be against abortion and against it being legal.

What can you say about euthanasia, as long as the patient is voluntary? Kinda better than executing non-voluntary people like the death penalty does, right?

Coulter's book seems to be just a large and unclarified LexisNexus search than something factually accurate and representative. Fiction is based on facts, especially historical fiction, but that doesn't make it accurate. Coulter is as based on facts as fiction is. Even she admitted she's out of touch when she claims all the liberals are out of touch because they are rich. Well Ann Coulter just happens to be rich too.

 

[Gem]

Actually, I have done a lot of reading and looking into how both Ann Coulter and Michael Moore answered their critics regarding issues of research and the criticisms of their sources.

Ann Coulter has answered all of the charges against her. You can find her rebuttals either in her books or in her articles. She clearly and concisely discusses what the charge against her was and why she was right and they were wrong. In the few occassions, I think I have read about 2, that a footnote was actually incorrect (there was an issue about Dale Earnhart's death not being frontpage news at the NYT I think...she said they didn't have an article but they did...it just wasn't reported on LexisNexis when she did her search), she owned up to it and apologized.

Michael Moore, on the other hand, the last time I checked, has never come clean about so many of the issues people have with his films. For instance, the impossibility of his last scene in Bowling for Columbine being filmed exactly as it is shown with no restaging, or discussing how several of the people who were in his films feel completely used...because he never told them what the theme of the movie he was putting them in was going to be. (The boys in the movie who go to K-Mart, the ones shot at Columbine both are gun owners who state that their intention was never to be in an anti-gun film...and both feel very used by Moore).

While both certainly express things in a way that supports their view and only their view...Coulter has answered her critics...Moore, for the most part, simply calls them names and says that he has addressed them when he really hasn't.

 

[IControlThePast]

Actually, I have done a lot of reading and looking into how both Ann Coulter and Michael Moore answered their critics regarding issues of research and the criticisms of their sources.

Ann Coulter has answered all of the charges against her. You can find her rebuttals either in her books or in her articles. She clearly and concisely discusses what the charge against her was and why she was right and they were wrong. In the few occassions, I think I have read about 2, that a footnote was actually incorrect (there was an issue about Dale Earnhart's death not being frontpage news at the NYT I think...she said they didn't have an article but they did...it just wasn't reported on LexisNexis when she did her search), she owned up to it and apologized.

Michael Moore, on the other hand, the last time I checked, has never come clean about so many of the issues people have with his films. For instance, the impossibility of his last scene in Bowling for Columbine being filmed exactly as it is shown with no restaging, or discussing how several of the people who were in his films feel completely used...because he never told them what the theme of the movie he was putting them in was going to be. (The boys in the movie who go to K-Mart, the ones shot at Columbine both are gun owners who state that their intention was never to be in an anti-gun film...and both feel very used by Moore).

While both certainly express things in a way that supports their view and only their view...Coulter has answered her critics...Moore, for the most part, simply calls them names and says that he has addressed them when he really hasn't.

Many of the criticisms of Coulter are how she extrapolates her opinion from the "facts" in an unreasonable, illogical, and irrational manner. She's certainly not going to apologize for that.

For example: She says there's a liberal media (maybe there is), but I haven't seen her move to reinstate the FCC's fairness doctrine. If she's so confident about her facts and viewpoints why not do that? It was Republicans under Reagan that eliminated the fairness doctrine too. If there is a liberal media are you for restoring the Fairness Doctrine?