Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can do a little bit of homework on the Media Matters article. Did you even glance at the article? Never mind. Talk about spoon-feeding. Here you go:
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-94-95-Jan-Election.pdf
Look at table 6 in the PDF file. White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage-point margin, and white men supported it by 38 points. On the other hand, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin."
I've done plenty of research on Media Matters, Field Polls though, I find nothing untoward and couldn't find a thing using .gov.
Looking through the PDF, there seems a tendency to blame white, older folk for voting, while younger non-white, Hispanics did not. As I'm reading this, it sounds like something from the UN, whereas, in fact, whereas, in fact. Hello??? So Field Polling seems to have been the back up of the overturning of a proposition passed by nearly 60% of California voters?
It seems that the state government really did not want the results they got, as you point out yourself, only 46% of Latinos voted 'no', but the state still chose to challenge and get the vote overturned.
What was your point Matt?
Where do you get that only 46% of Latinos voted no? The Media Matters article said that according to the poll, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin.
The analysis showed that 73 percent of Hispanic voters voted against Proposition 187.
Coulter said that a majority of Hispanics voted in favor of Proposition 187. How does she know that without reading the minds of the voting Hispanics? On the other hand, based on exit polls, it is reasonable to conclude that over 50 percent of the Hispanic that voted, voted against Proposition 187. I know that polls are not votes but even if you adjust generously for possible errors in validity, it is pretty clear that Hispanics voted against the proposition. Coulter was clearly wrong.
Your problem may lie with Media Matters. I'm shocked. What I'm also 'shocked' at is results of this sort that you buy into.
I took you for brighter than that, especially if using it to prove Coulter wrong. Look at your own wording, which I've bolded above. Sorry Matt, that's crap and if you don't know it, then please tell me you are 16 years old.
I’ll ask again: Where did you get that 46 percent of Latinos voted no? I’m waiting. Post my quote, a quote from Media Matters, or a Quote from the PDF file.
Take Statistics 101. Learn the difference between points, point margins, and margin of error. Then get back with me.
It's interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged "lies" keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I'm asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats. One crackpot argument after another is shot down — but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter100903.asp
Given the overall veracity of Coulter's books, this ridiculously picky attack reminds me of the old Al Franken days. To quote Ann after she responded to the first 17 rounds of alleged "lies" she was charged with:
Yes, people can be wrong or at least "technically" wrong - especially when they are gabbing about on the talk circuit - things are said that can be easily miscontrued...thus the nitpicky Ann-Attacks just keep on coming...even though she is essentially right in everything she says.I don’t like to use the word “Lie”. I even dislike the title that Al used for his book. All that I meant to show is that Coulter has been wrong as Moore has been wrong. The only significant difference between the two, as far as celebrity status and political rhetoric goes, is that one is a conservative and one is a liberal.
Proposition 187 passed in a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin -- a larger margin than Wilson got, incidentally. It was supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of Hispanic voters. It passed in every area of California, except San Francisco, a city where intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is not considered unusual. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed with a 12-point margin.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23691
Yes, people can be wrong or at least "technically" wrong - especially when they are gabbing about on the talk circuit - things are said that can be easily miscontrued...thus the nitpicky Ann-Attacks just keep on coming...even though she is essentially right in everything she says.
However, MM doesn't even come close to AC. Tell me, how would you like to sign up for the Cuban socialized medicine plan that he claims is so great?
It is almost as if you are resorting to Clintonspeak:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clintonspeak
Has Coulter been correct in all that she has written and said or has she ever been wrong? The elements are mutually exclusive.
No. I think that “universal health care” would not be good. We have SCHIP, Medicare, and Medicaid for those that fall on difficult times.
I thought those taking part in this thread might like to read what various leading conservatives have had to say about Ann Coulter.
My own point of view is this: she does not sufficiently distinguish, to put it mildly, between humorous hyperbole, deliberate exaggerations, on the one hand; and seriously-meant charges on the other. Thus there is an unseriousness about her politics. She is funny as hell, if, like me, you are already a partisan of the conservative side. But if we are to take her assertions seriously, many of them do not stand up. This is too bad, because it lets the liberals off the hook.
Anyway, here is what other conservatives have said about her. I have put links to the Wikipedia entry for each one, in case some of them are not familiar to those reading this.
Christopher Hitchens Reviews Coulter's Godless. (Hitchens is not a conservative, but liberals hate him, and he is well worth reading.)
William Buckley reviews Coulter's Treason (See here for more on William Buckley.
Stephen Schwartz on Ann Coulter (For more on this most interesting man, see here.)
Various conservative historians and columnists assess Ann Coulter. One of them is a biographer of Joseph McCarthy.
What Would Russell Kirk Say About Ann Coulter? A Catholic conservative muses about Coulter vs Russell Kirk, although, to my mind, he does not address the central issue: granted, Ann Coulter is a popularizer, but is she a conscientious and truthful popularizer? (See here for more on Russell Kirk.)
David Horowtiz discusses Ann Coulter. (See here for more on David Horowitz.)
Of course…they are all statists at heart.If Hitler hadn’t turned against their beloved Stalin, liberals would have stuck by him, too.
Imagine the Red Alert if Huckabee is elected.If liberals are on Red Alert with one born-again Christian in the cabinet of a Christian president, imagine how they would react if there were five. Between 25 and 45 percent of the population calls itself “born-again” or “evangelical” Christian. Jews make up less than 2 per cent of the nation’s population, and yet Clinton had five in his cabinet. He appointed two to the Supreme Court. Now guess which administration is called a neoconservative conspiracy? Whether Jews or Christians, liberals are always on a witch hunt against people who appear to believe in God.
Witness Nancy Pelosi... who garbles about being a devout Catholic grandmother…yet she supports aborting all those babies.If Democrats ever dared speak coherently about what they believe, the American people would lynch them.
Witness those revolving doors in the justice system…Assuming you aren’t a fetus, the Left’s most dangerous belief is their adoration of violent criminals.
But you can't deny the fact that she at least gets out conservative messages one way or another.
LOL Hitchens pulled out some good ones…I added my non-intellectual comments:
Of course…they are all statists at heart.
Imagine the Red Alert if Huckabee is elected.
Witness Nancy Pelosi... who garbles about being a devout Catholic grandmother…yet she supports aborting all those babies.
Witness those revolving doors in the justice system…
To take the McCarthy example: we know that the Roosevelt administration was infiltrated, and at a high level in some cases, by people who were Soviet espionage agents. We know that their activities, even when attention was called to them by defectors like Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, were ignored for years by that administration.
There are two possible explanations for this: (1) FDR and his closest associates were actually themselves Soviet agents. (2) There is something about the liberal mentality which makes them soft on those to their Left who are fighting for many of the same goals.
These are not at all the same thing. The first explanation is ridiculous. The second one is plausible, and we have a chance to convince people -- including thoughtful liberals who are not pro-totalitarian -- of its truth. But conflating the two just makes most people reject the whole argument.
Does Nancy Pelosi want babies to be aborted or does she what women to be allowed to choose to have their fetuses aborted? I want all pregnant women to have abortions! There is a difference.
There are pro-choice Catholics:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/abortion/default.asp
.
just because there is a website out there that claimes to be catholic doesnt give it any credibility...