Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So then obviously you see the difference between a written commandment by the founder of a religion and the errors of a few followers of another.
What you see as an "inconsistency" is actually a watershed change caused by the Son of Man fulfilling scripture, offering up His own body to pay for the sins of man. It is complex and simple at the same time.
Ann Coulter has never been caught in a lie. If you have an example, cough it up. But I warn you, I'm a huge Coulter fan and you are not going to be able to get away with anything with me. So make sure any example you have is really a lie, and not an opinion you just happen to hate.
If he believed in god, yes, he was.
If he believed in the Tooth Fairy you'd call him stupid, wouldn't you?
I've known a lot of stupid educated people. Haven't you?
Jerusalem was, and is, the Holy Land for Judaic-Christian culture.
Sure, I'll admit that I lied: "I did not, have sex, with that woman. (Points off toward somewhere.) Miss Lewinsky."Of course I see the difference. Im one of the most analytical and nit-picky people on this board. Now that, I think, you have admitted your lie or mistake in saying that Christianity was never spread by the sword (action) we can debate and discuss religious commandments (instructions) and how inconsistent they are in religious books.
Perhaps you could be so kind to tell me where I said that.
Post 74 you said:
The Crusades, as these were to push the Muslims out of occupied Christian Europe.
The Crusades were to push Muslims out of the Holy land, including Jerusalem.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/Commentary/IslamHistory0212.aspxThe lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.
This is a part of history that few understand. Yes, the Christians sought to reclaim Jerusalem, as well as Constantinople, but only after they re-took Europe.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/Commentary/IslamHistory0212.aspx
So are you disputing the facts that I quoted, or only have the capability to shoot the messenger?:whip3:
Actually no one has posted any links that dispute what I have said: that the Muslim invaders went well into Europe.Sorry... I don't debate nonsense. Sources matter and we've already told you that the Crusades aren't what you say they are and posted relevant links. You just don't like the response.
Actually no one has posted any links that dispute what I have said: that the Muslim invaders went well into Europe.
It appears that you are too closed-minded to delve into this. Or too lazy. Or too afraid that I am correct.
In her book Slander she accused the NY Times of waiting a whole TWO days to report that Dale Ernhardt had died (her point was to make out the NY Times is biased against traditional, conservative sportsman like Ernhardt). They printed a front page story the day after he died. She lied. You'll probably say she was mistaken. I dont' believe so. She either lied or did very sloppy research and is stupid. Take your pick. Personally? I believe you lied. That is but one example.
Then you are using the wrong word. Stupid has a specific meaning:
stupid 
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
stupid
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
You think Isaac Newton fits the bill?
I will say she was mistaken because in the case of Dale Earnhart, she admitted she was wrong, and future editions of her book were corrected. The woman has written millions of words. She uses more facts than any other pundit I've ever read, and she is rarely wrong. But when she is, she admits it.
I'll give some more examples of mistakes she's made with facts and the reaction to them:
In one of her books she mistook someones grandfather for their father. As soon as this mistake was noticed, the knives came out and Ann was villified for it. Al Franken wrote, in one of his books, about this error and called it a lie by saying that the man was not the subjects father without ever once mentioning the fact that he was the subjects grandfather. Ann's confusing a mans grandfather with his father was a mistake. Calling her a liar without ever mentioning that the fact that she simply confused the relationship was a deliberate, and nasty, attempt to smear her. She admitted that mistake and corrected it.
Speaking of Franken, Ann once said that they had met socially and were "friendly". Well, Franken took great issue with that, and again called her a liar. Ann corrected that, too. She admitted that she did not mean to imply they were friends, just that they had met socially and were cordial to each other in social settings. I believe she said she should have used the term "civil" instead of friendly. But, seriously, how fucking petty can you get?
Ann was accused of lying by calling the end notes in her books "foot notes". Again, she admitted she was guilty of this terrible lie. She did refer to end notes as foot notes. And so do a hell of a lot of other people.
Considering the vast amount that Coulter has written, and the copious facts she uses to back up her opinions, she has made very few mistakes, has admitted and corrected every one, and none of them could possibly be considered a lie. Except by those who hate her opinions. And when calling her a liar doesn't work, they go after her looks.
I've got that book of Franken's (Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them). He had a whole chapter on her mistakes. They are hardly a few considering the book itself was only 200 pages long. She should write less and make sure she gets her facts right. She makes far too many "mistakes" IMO, which affects the already little credibility she has. If any journalist made as many "mistakes" as she did they'd be fired. As for the footnotes issue, that was very minor. It was the content of the footnotes that Franken really took issue with. He dedicated two sentences to her using the term foot note instead of end note; he dedicated 5 pages to the mistakes in those foot/end notes. Ironically, you talk about Evan Thomas (the son/grandson thing) and how Franken never mentioned Thomas was the grandson, not the son and somehow that is neferous on his part, yet in one of her paragraphs in her book he shows her doing exactly the same thing. Go figure.
