Finally, An instructive look at Ann Coulter

[acludem]

Al Franken's new book Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them does a lot to debunk Ann Coulter as nothing more than a shrill liar. He goes through and systematically exposes her technique for lying with footnotes in serveral ways. Her books are full of inaccuracies backed up with footnotes that don't offer proof for her arguments.

As Al Franken says" Ann Coulter is the reigning diva of the hysterical right or the hysterical diva of the reigning right".

I've seen Ann Coulter on Bill Maher's show several times, she's full of it. She usually gets her clock cleaned by Bill, the liberal guests and often the other conservative.

 

[MtnBiker]

It seems there is debunking on both ends of the spectrum.
An insightful, research-based challenge of Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Lair Who Tell Them

 

[remie]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
It seems there is debunking on both ends of the spectrum.
An insightful, research-based challenge of Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Lair Who Tell Them

Ah biker...at last someone that sees both sides of the argument. I believe that the original post said something about conservatives not knowing what their direction was to be....given the state of the democrat party, could not the same be said for them?

 

[Psychoblues]

I hesitate to remind you but I feel compelled to do so. Al Franken is a comedian and states so in his foreword. I know of no moderate or even liberal Democrat that takes Al, Ann or Ted too seriously. The point that is clearly made in the original post is that Ann is not a spokesperson for the conservatives and even goes on to say why she isn't and should not be considered as such. That's the way I see it.

The primary difference among them is that Ann desperately desires to be taken seriously for whatever reason. Selling books maybe? I guess you could say the same in many cases. Personally, I view the Bill O'Reilly's, the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, the Al Frankens and Ted Ralls and yes, Ann Coulters to all be nothing more than simple and often distasteful "entertainment". If I took any of them too seriously I'm afraid I would just stay mad at the world for a disproportionate amount of my time and my life, but maybe that is what they are after.

Anger compells many to do, say and think things they otherwise would not. My advise would be that when you feel yourself getting angry, take a deep breath, examine the issues and options and develop a PLAN or resign yourself to allowing other, more clear-thinking individuals to assist you in your issue management. Yeah, I fail to take my own advise sometimes and that is not an excuse, but it is reality.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

Your post is meant to do what?

Dispute your argument, of course. Isn't that obvious?

...besides show that you are more than willing to continue discounting anything said by a liberal as 'factual innacuracies and irrational agenda' simply because they are a liberal

I said no such thing. I said specifically PUNDITS LIKE TED RALL. Please don't put words in my mouth.

while ann and her republican viewpoints are 'forthright, and furthermore, to imply that ann coulter is in no way comparable to ted rall with 'convincing arguments' is ludicrous.

Why, do you offer any rebuttal to my specific points about the cartoon?

they are both political hacks and party pundits who stretch any story to the side they want to and whose stories and speeches should be considered about as equally intellectual as O'reilly's 'Inside Edition' reporting.

So let me get this straight... it's not slander for pundits like Ted Rall to portray the entire American right as a violent, brutal, repressive people? Ann pointing out that Rall (along with Moore, Franken, and the rest of the "mainstream" left spokepeople) use slander in thier tactics is NOT SLANDEROUS. It's not "stupid" or "fun" or "Nazi-like" but simply a fact. I tried to make very simple in relation to one factual link, so please address it.

Also, quotes such as this from yourself: "She's a nazi-state wannabe political pundit" make my point EXACTLY. Slander is the primary weapon of the left, and it's all I've heard from your spokespeople over and over and over again, about Bush, Cheney, Coulter, Fox, etc... every single political opponent.

There is a difference between the left constantly doing this and Ann pointing out that fact.

 

[Annie]

Comrade, weird name for one with your views, but I like it. I agree, seems to me that it's the left that has been trying to silence any opposition, which is weird when they are the party out of power, I guess they just don't know it. Good thing that there are now so many more outlets of information today.

 

[Psychoblues]

Comrade, I think they bought you cheap but you won't realize it until they sell you even cheaper. Be that as it is, welcome to USMB!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock

Just because he's a cartoonist doesn't means he's any worse or better.

Huh, where did I say that a cartoonist is worse? I said he worked for an actual newspaper, unlike Ann, which makes him closer to any definition you might use for "journalist" than appleis to Ann.

Even commentators and cartoonists given writing tools and context are still journalists.

No they are not.

Journalists report news and facts.

Commentators provide opinions and editorial analysis.

I have to admitt this point shocked me this most. Irrational agenda? You're trying to tell me that Coulter is devoid of an irrational agenda? If some of things she suggested were put into reality we'd be living in a police state full of mostly white folk, with everyone else either deported or in camps, with half the world ablaze with preemptive strikes! Her comments on minorities is down right scandalous! Just like if Ted's comments were heeded, the US would implode upon itself due to its inaction and spinelessness. I can't seriously believe anyone could take either as serious journalist. [/B]

I don't, since they are not. People, PLEASE play attention to what I say, I'll TRY to make this simple.

1. Ann points out the left relys upon Slander as a primary political tool, and even titles her book after this.

2. Rall depicts "the Right reaching out" as Nazi thugs complete with swastika armbands, surrounding a bloody beaten leftist tied up and imprisoned.

3. You can't seriously believe Ann could be right but I still don't see why, nobody has done anything but pile on more slander to rebut this.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Comrade, I think they bought you cheap but you won't realize it until they sell you even cheaper. Be that as it is, welcome to USMB!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks. But your wrong, I BOUGHT THEM!

 

[DKSuddeth]

From Comrade:

Dispute your argument, of course. Isn't that obvious?

No, or I wouldn't have asked.

I said no such thing. I said specifically PUNDITS LIKE TED RALL. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You are correct, for this I apologize. I will ask you this though, Is there a liberal who's orations are NOT factual inaccuracies or an irrational agenda?

Why, do you offer any rebuttal to my specific points about the cartoon?

No, because I already KNOW Ted Rall is almost as close to the edge as Noam Chomsky so I never bothered to open the page or look at the cartoon.

Also, quotes such as this from yourself: "She's a nazi-state wannabe political pundit" make my point EXACTLY.

When I hear Coulter say that John Walker Lindh should have been shot and that we should invade the middle east and convert them to christianity.....well, it just kinda sounds like she's preaching for the return of the nazi party all over again. call me crazy....

So let me get this straight... it's not slander for pundits like Ted Rall to portray the entire American right as a violent, brutal, repressive people?

where did I say it wasn't?

Ann pointing out that Rall (along with Moore, Franken, and the rest of the "mainstream" left spokepeople) use slander in thier tactics is NOT SLANDEROUS. It's not "stupid" or "fun" or "Nazi-like" but simply a fact. I tried to make very simple in relation to one factual link, so please address it.

What you TRIED to do was point out that Coulter is incomparable to Rall and other left pundits because you seem to think that she delivers 'convincing' arguments and attacks the left in a more forthright than the others, thereby elevating her to the near status of journalist.

Slander is the primary weapon of the left

lets be more precise, Slander is the primary weapon of BOTH parties. I never said otherwise, you on the other hand.....;

There is a difference between the left constantly doing this and Ann pointing out that fact.

Just as theres a difference between Coulter constantly using slander and the left pointing out that fact.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

What you TRIED to do was point out that Coulter is incomparable to Rall and other left pundits because you seem to think that she delivers 'convincing' arguments and attacks the left in a more forthright than the others, thereby elevating her to the near status of journalist.

Journalist definition aside, I didn't try to do this, I succeeded. So far I have one example of a pure, unadulterated slander by the left and validation of Coulter's premise in "Slander". On your side is your opinons on what I seem to think, no real factual rebuttal.

Here are some other choice tidbits from this book:

"If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" -- Ann Coulter, P. 10


"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have "racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple them." -- Ann Coulter, P. 121


"'Stupid' means one thing: "threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party." The more Conservative the Republican, the more vicious and hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be." -- Ann Coulter, P. 125

Slander is the primary weapon of BOTH parties. I never said otherwise, you on the other hand.....;

It is not slander to rebut slanderous arguments. That's what I said. Now don't get me wrong, Ann is a smarmy, self-righteous, grade A Bitch. But she's not wrong on the above.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Journalist definition aside, I didn't try to do this, I succeeded.

Your opinion, not mine.

So far I have one example of a pure, unadulterated slander by the left and validation of Coulter's premise in "Slander". On your side is your opinons on what I seem to think, no real factual rebuttal.

and for every 'validation' you provide from coulter I'm sure I could provide one from someone on the left, however, never having read coulter, Rall, limbaugh, or franken I won't. Having heard her speak once was enough for me to know that she isn't any different than someone on the left, as you describe them.

Until you pull the blinders off and realize that coulter is also slanderous you are only showing yourself to be as partisan as they are.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

and for every 'validation' you provide from coulter I'm sure I could provide one from someone on the left, however, never having read coulter, Rall, limbaugh, or franken I won't. Having heard her speak once was enough for me to know that she isn't any different than someone on the left, as you describe them.

Until you pull the blinders off and realize that coulter is also slanderous you are only showing yourself to be as partisan as they are.

If you're not even familiar with the actual works and speeches, and instead just want to chalk my the entire argument up as blind partisanship, we are done.

I think the two bolded statements above do not mesh, though, and pretty much describe the kind of reaction Coulter pinpoints when opponents of Rebuplicans are backed into a logical corner. I'm willing to leave it at that.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Comrade
Originally posted by DKSuddeth



If you're not even familiar with the actual works and speeches, and instead just want to chalk my the entire argument up as blind partisanship, we are done.

I think the two bolded statements above do not mesh, though, and pretty much describe the kind of reaction Coulter pinpoints when opponents of Rebuplicans are backed into a logical corner. I'm willing to leave it at that.

I am however familiar with both Ted's and Ann's works as I read both of them regularily. I note on several occaisions she discounts all muslims with one mighty generalization, she calls all liberals unintelligent and reactionary while making reactionary comments herself and she uses derrogatory terms to almost everyone who she disagrees with. She is an extremist who's religious views (ie all the mideast should be converted to Christianity) and social views (advocating eye-for-an-eye reaction to abortion doctors, Source: Politically Incorrect) would make even many die hard conservatives cringe. Simply put she is a bad representation of conservatives and tarnishes the image of conservatives, which I believe to be a valid political stand point even though i do not agree. Again, she is no different than Ted.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I am however familiar with both Ted's and Ann's works as I read both of them regularily. I note on several occaisions she discounts all muslims with one mighty generalization, she calls all liberals unintelligent and reactionary while making reactionary comments herself and she uses derrogatory terms to almost everyone who she disagrees with. She is an extremist who's religious views (ie all the mideast should be converted to Christianity) and social views (advocating eye-for-an-eye reaction to abortion doctors, Source: Politically Incorrect) would make even many die hard conservatives cringe. Simply put she is a bad representation of conservatives and tarnishes the image of conservatives, which I believe to be a valid political stand point even though i do not agree. Again, she is no different than Ted.

Wrong. She's way better. Saying over the top things is just her way of getting to know ya! You guys need a sense of humor. She rocks. She's brilliant, and she's hot.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Wrong. She's way better. Saying over the top things is just her way of getting to know ya! You guys need a sense of humor. She rocks. She's brilliant, and she's hot.

Hahaha! Entertainment value aside...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Hahaha! Entertainment value aside...

Darn. I was just sure I would see the phrase "shrill, hateful harpy" somewhere in your post!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Darn. I was just sure I would see the phrase "shrill, hateful harpy" somewhere in your post!

I don't know if i'd describe her as shrill... but hey one out of two ain't so bad