Ann Coulter debunks myths about Thomas Jefferson!

[basquebromance]

somebody's gotta do it!
July 3, 2019 - WAS THOMAS JEFFERSON ON THE DUKE LACROSSE TEAM?

 

[Jitss617]

Pretty accurate stuff.. such a shame democrats hate facts

 

[whitehall]

Debunked myths? Coulter was debunking the typical left wing smears on American tradition we often see today.

 

[Toronado3800]

somebody's gotta do it!
July 3, 2019 - WAS THOMAS JEFFERSON ON THE DUKE LACROSSE TEAM?

PoliticalChick on here has me thinking Ann Coulter might be where PC got the idea Democrats are racist against whites and blacks I guess in an attempt to get the Asian or Hispanic votes on a national level?

But why do I care if Thomas Jefferson was on the Lacrosse team?

 

[Cecilie1200]

somebody's gotta do it!
July 3, 2019 - WAS THOMAS JEFFERSON ON THE DUKE LACROSSE TEAM?

PoliticalChick on here has me thinking Ann Coulter might be where PC got the idea Democrats are racist against whites and blacks I guess in an attempt to get the Asian or Hispanic votes on a national level?

But why do I care if Thomas Jefferson was on the Lacrosse team?

 

[Picaro]

Coulter is an idiot who throws out trash and has a cult of followers who will repeat it as if it was all factual.

 

[jc456]

Coulter is an idiot who throws out trash and has a cult of followers who will repeat it as if it was all factual.

so you can't debate her, understood. thanks.

 

[Picaro]

Coulter is an idiot who throws out trash and has a cult of followers who will repeat it as if it was all factual.

so you can't debate her, understood. thanks.

She's a joke; she never debates, just throws out stupid shit right wing morons like to hear and they think that because it's in a book it must be true, like you seem to think. William Buckley finally got conservatives to dump the John Birch cranks for the same reasons nobody should pay any attention to Coulter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Coulter is an idiot who throws out trash and has a cult of followers who will repeat it as if it was all factual.

Ad hominem attacks are another way of saying, "I can't refute your points." When someone makes an assertion about a topic and asks, "What do you have to say to that?" and you respond, "You suck and you're ugly, so there!" you're basically conceding defeat.

Just FYI.

 

[Picaro]

Coulter is an idiot who throws out trash and has a cult of followers who will repeat it as if it was all factual.

Ad hominem attacks are another way of saying, "I can't refute your points." When someone makes an assertion about a topic and asks, "What do you have to say to that?" and you respond, "You suck and you're ugly, so there!" you're basically conceding defeat.

Just FYI.

Well unfortunately for those like yourself who never went on to take Intro To Logic 102 after 101, it turns out ad hominem 'attacks' are also valid arguments, as are 'slippery slopes' and several other names you would recognize in the list of 10 most common fallacies in your Logic For Dummies textbook. Ann Coulter is the right wing version of Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, and should be ignored for the same reasons. Stupid conspiratard hackery masquerading as history is something the Left needs to rely on, not moderates and conservatives.

 

[Picaro]

Buckley, on driving the right wing cranks out of the GOP, getting Goldwater on the ballot, and partly moderating the damage right wign cranks had been doing to conservatism in the U.S.

William F. Buckley: Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me

"
Time was given to the John Birch Society lasting through lunch, and the subject came up again the next morning. We resolved that conservative leaders should do something about the John Birch Society. An allocation of responsibilities crystallized.

Goldwater would seek out an opportunity to dissociate himself from the “findings” of the Society’s leader, without, however, casting any aspersions on the Society itself. I, in National Review and in my other writing, would continue to expose Welch and his thinking to scorn and derision. “You know how to do that,” said Jay Hall.

I volunteered to go further. Unless Welch himself disowned his operative fallacy, National Review would oppose any support for the society.

“How would you define the Birch fallacy?” Jay Hall asked.

“The fallacy,” I said, “is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence: we lost China to the Communists, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.”

“I like that,” Goldwater said.

What would Russell Kirk do? He was straightforward. “Me? I’ll just say, if anybody gets around to asking me, that the guy is loony and should be put away.”

“Put away in Alaska?” I asked, mock-seriously. The wisecrack traced to Robert Welch’s expressed conviction, a year or so earlier, that the state of Alaska was being prepared to house anyone who doubted his doctrine that fluoridated water was a Communist-backed plot to weaken the minds of the American public.

_____________



In the next issue of my magazine, National Review, I published a 5,000-word excoriation of Welch:

How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points . . . so far removed from common sense? That dilemma weighs on conservatives across America. . . . The underlying problem is whether conservatives can continue to acquiesce quietly in a rendition of the causes of the decline of the Republic and the entire Western world which is false, and, besides that, crucially different in practical emphasis from their own.

In response, National Review received the explicit endorsement of Senator Goldwater himself, who wrote a letter we published in the following issue:

I think you have clearly stated the problem which Mr. Welch’s continued leadership of the John Birch Society poses for sincere conservatives. . . . Mr. Welch is only one man, and I do not believe his views, far removed from reality and common sense as they are, represent the feelings of most members of the John Birch Society. . . . Because of this, I believe the best thing Mr. Welch could do to serve the cause of anti-Communism in the United States would be to resign. . . . We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.

The wound we Palm Beach plotters delivered to the John Birch Society proved fatal over time. Barry Goldwater did not win the presidency, but he clarified the proper place of anti-Communism on the Right, with bright prospects to follow."

Bold added by me. One would think something would be learned by how the ridiculously dope addled and stupid Left is failing with their fake news there would be enough genuine conservatives and moderates around to keep the same sort of idiotic fake news tactics out of the discussions, but I guess they're just too much fun for the infants on the Right to stay away from. If you like close elections just keep up the lunacy; if you want to win and keep winning grow the fuck up and lose the morons like Coulter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Coulter is an idiot who throws out trash and has a cult of followers who will repeat it as if it was all factual.

Ad hominem attacks are another way of saying, "I can't refute your points." When someone makes an assertion about a topic and asks, "What do you have to say to that?" and you respond, "You suck and you're ugly, so there!" you're basically conceding defeat.

Just FYI.

Well unfortunately for those like yourself who never went on to take Intro To Logic 102 after 101, it turns out ad hominem 'attacks' are also valid arguments, as are 'slippery slopes' and several other names you would recognize in the list of 10 most common fallacies in your Logic For Dummies textbook. Ann Coulter is the right wing version of Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, and should be ignored for the same reasons. Stupid conspiratard hackery masquerading as history is something the Left needs to rely on, not moderates and conservatives.

No, I'm sorry, "She's an idiot, so there" is NOT a valid argument after about the third grade or so. Feel free to think whatever you like about Ms. Coulter, as I'm sure no one, including her, cares about or values your opinion on the subject anyway. But do not delude yourself that it is an effective rebuttal to the verifiable evidence she presents.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, her idoicy is indeed a valid argument, and like I said, ad homs are valid arguments; just because you didn't make it past Logic 101 isn't relevant. I don't care if you care about my facts or not, I'm not here to please morons and trolls.