On Tossing Around The Term "Fascist"

[ThoughtCrimes]

Yes...the left wing nuts who put the dictionary together put in Right Wing in order to hide the true left wing reality of fascism....fascism is just one style of socialism which is left wing......

Yeah, they did it just to piss you off too! Did another impaired troglodyte help you script that you bloody fool?

The left has been trying to hide the fact that socialism....in all of it's different interations has murdered over 100 million people around the world.....and since the crimes of the international socialists are easily ignored...while those of the national socialists in Germany were made clear to the whole world at Nurenberg........they throw on the term Right Wing because they can lie about it.....and get away with it....

Oh God, you're divulging deeply classified information held in the vaults of the Trilateral Commission from the Benton Woods meeting in 1946. FOOL, DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'VE DONE NOW? You've released the Kraken and we're all gonna fucking die!

Too bad for you guys that we now have the internet and you can't just throw out a lie and expect it to be believed......

Oh shut the fuck up you idiot and put down that damn Kool Aid!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Here is the actual definition of Fascism...not written by a socialist trying to hide the fact that all types of socialism have led to the murder of over 100 million people...

NO, that is the definition from a right-wing organization; do a little research on the source before you make a fool of yourself and post it. Can we say vested interest you fucking idiot!

Damn, you have the same trait as PC and others. If it is written, can be found on the internet and fits the point wanted, IT MUST BE TRUE! Try and learn from your mistakes the first time around instead of repeating them over and over, fool! Don't you ever get embarrassed looking so fucking pathetic?

 

[Contumacious]

5. Now...about the correct usage of "Fascist,".....it is a collectivist, statist doctrine.

That means a belief in a centralized government that dictates every aspect of its citizens existence, citizens who are expected to march in lock-step.


"..... but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

The dichotomy that is today’s political reality is based on this retreat, asthe American left simply flipped from the brown-shirt utopians to the red-flag utopians, parroting Stalin’s rhetoric: anything objectionable is fascist."
Goldberg






As America was founded on a very different belief set....i.e., individualism, and limited constitutional government, neither the Founders, nor classical liberals- who would be called conservatives today, can be identified as "Fascists."

Clearly a no-no!


No doubt all sorts of terms, scatological and otherwise, are used by opponents....and many are arguable....but Fascist is clearly incorrect, a bogus attempt to sound educated....you know, less a 'barnyardism.'






6. Further, no ideology which does not include defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society would be accurate.


Thus....conservatives cannot be Fascists, communists, Modern Liberals, socialists, Nazis or Progressives.



So sorry.

Agree with your definition of fascism.

But conservatives after 1935 have supported fascistic policies.

But even before 1935 they supported the federal reserve act and the heavy graduated "income" tax.

After 1935 conservatives have supported warmongering, imperialism. the civil war on drug users, blue laws, laws against prostitution, laws against abortion,


ONLY the Libertarians support the Constitution (1787) and freedom across the board.


.

 

[BlindBoo]

Caught you lying again,huh?

Nope not even close. I never said any thing about percentage of votes. I said Democrats controlled both houses and had a super majority in the Senate. Now if you want to twist numbers, more democrats voted in favor of it than Republicans in both houses of Congress.

But I can't say you lied because you used those percentages that way, but you must be feeling prettystupid claiming you caught me in a lie with that BS.

Back to one of your earlier lies.....

You pretended you were familiar with Jonah Goldberg's scholarly tome, "Liberal Fascism," referring to it in a deprecating manner.

Why do you Liberals stoop to that sort of fabrication?

Why not either read it, or not refer to it at all...or, possibly quote some review?

Don't you see that as a lie?
Is that what you learned in government school?


It occurs frequently with Ann Coulter.


You seem to verify this thought from Nancy Pearcy...
"Students who develop a suffocating sense of superiority, who pass judgment on authors as racist, sexist, capitalist, imperialist or homophobic before even reading their works. Political correctness is not designed to produce students who think for themselves, but, rather, cadres of self-absorbed reactionaries ready to take their orders from ‘the movement.’
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter eight.

He was motivated by the fact that right wing nut job's were always being associated with the Nazi, so he set out to propagandize that it was the other way around. RWNJ's lapped it up.....However his so called scholarly work is nothing of the sort.

The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

An Academic Book — Not!

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions

Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

 

[PoliticalChic]

Caught you lying again,huh?

Nope not even close. I never said any thing about percentage of votes. I said Democrats controlled both houses and had a super majority in the Senate. Now if you want to twist numbers, more democrats voted in favor of it than Republicans in both houses of Congress.

But I can't say you lied because you used those percentages that way, but you must be feeling prettystupid claiming you caught me in a lie with that BS.

Back to one of your earlier lies.....

You pretended you were familiar with Jonah Goldberg's scholarly tome, "Liberal Fascism," referring to it in a deprecating manner.

Why do you Liberals stoop to that sort of fabrication?

Why not either read it, or not refer to it at all...or, possibly quote some review?

Don't you see that as a lie?
Is that what you learned in government school?


It occurs frequently with Ann Coulter.


You seem to verify this thought from Nancy Pearcy...
"Students who develop a suffocating sense of superiority, who pass judgment on authors as racist, sexist, capitalist, imperialist or homophobic before even reading their works. Political correctness is not designed to produce students who think for themselves, but, rather, cadres of self-absorbed reactionaries ready to take their orders from ‘the movement.’
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter eight.

He was motivated by the fact that right wing nut job's were always being associated with the Nazi, so he set out to propagandize that it was the other way around. RWNJ's lapped it up.....However his so called scholarly work is nothing of the sort.

The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

An Academic Book — Not!

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions

Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Now....that's a much better...and more informed....job.


On the other hand....if you pick up a copy of the book itself, you will see it to be well documented.
And...on the contrary...it is a scholarly work.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Caught you lying again,huh?

Nope not even close. I never said any thing about percentage of votes. I said Democrats controlled both houses and had a super majority in the Senate. Now if you want to twist numbers, more democrats voted in favor of it than Republicans in both houses of Congress.

But I can't say you lied because you used those percentages that way, but you must be feeling prettystupid claiming you caught me in a lie with that BS.

Back to one of your earlier lies.....

You pretended you were familiar with Jonah Goldberg's scholarly tome, "Liberal Fascism," referring to it in a deprecating manner.

Why do you Liberals stoop to that sort of fabrication?

Why not either read it, or not refer to it at all...or, possibly quote some review?

Don't you see that as a lie?
Is that what you learned in government school?


It occurs frequently with Ann Coulter.


You seem to verify this thought from Nancy Pearcy...
"Students who develop a suffocating sense of superiority, who pass judgment on authors as racist, sexist, capitalist, imperialist or homophobic before even reading their works. Political correctness is not designed to produce students who think for themselves, but, rather, cadres of self-absorbed reactionaries ready to take their orders from ‘the movement.’
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter eight.

He was motivated by the fact that right wing nut job's were always being associated with the Nazi, so he set out to propagandize that it was the other way around. RWNJ's lapped it up.....However his so called scholarly work is nothing of the sort.

The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

An Academic Book — Not!

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions

Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Now....that's a much better...and more informed....job.


On the other hand....if you pick up a copy of the book itself, you will see it to be well documented.
And...on the contrary...it is a scholarly work.

He's a hack, and you love it of course. He knows fascism roughly as well as you do meaning, not at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Although Goldberg does permit himself a few moments of over-the-top liberal bashing, his book is for the most part a work of serious scholarship that attempts to identify important intellectual connections between the American Progressives and European Fascists of the early twentieth century and a number of trends in modern U.S. politics, many but not all of which are associated with contemporary American liberalism.

For the most part, Goldberg succeeds in this endeavor, calling our attention to the ways in which the Progressives, the Fascists, and much of liberalism share a fundamental distrust of markets, unintended social order, and other core ideas of classical liberalism.

Goldberg’s strengths are his destruction of the argument that fascism is “right-wing” and the way he draws powerful parallels between the line from American Progressivism to the New Deal and the ideas behind European fascism."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf



Can I get an 'Amen'!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Caught you lying again,huh?

Nope not even close. I never said any thing about percentage of votes. I said Democrats controlled both houses and had a super majority in the Senate. Now if you want to twist numbers, more democrats voted in favor of it than Republicans in both houses of Congress.

But I can't say you lied because you used those percentages that way, but you must be feeling prettystupid claiming you caught me in a lie with that BS.

Back to one of your earlier lies.....

You pretended you were familiar with Jonah Goldberg's scholarly tome, "Liberal Fascism," referring to it in a deprecating manner.

Why do you Liberals stoop to that sort of fabrication?

Why not either read it, or not refer to it at all...or, possibly quote some review?

Don't you see that as a lie?
Is that what you learned in government school?


It occurs frequently with Ann Coulter.


You seem to verify this thought from Nancy Pearcy...
"Students who develop a suffocating sense of superiority, who pass judgment on authors as racist, sexist, capitalist, imperialist or homophobic before even reading their works. Political correctness is not designed to produce students who think for themselves, but, rather, cadres of self-absorbed reactionaries ready to take their orders from ‘the movement.’
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter eight.

He was motivated by the fact that right wing nut job's were always being associated with the Nazi, so he set out to propagandize that it was the other way around. RWNJ's lapped it up.....However his so called scholarly work is nothing of the sort.

The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

An Academic Book — Not!

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions

Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Now....that's a much better...and more informed....job.


On the other hand....if you pick up a copy of the book itself, you will see it to be well documented.
And...on the contrary...it is a scholarly work.

He's a hack, and you love it of course. He knows fascism roughly as well as you do meaning, not at all.

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Did you read the book?


Have you ever read any book???????


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope not even close. I never said any thing about percentage of votes. I said Democrats controlled both houses and had a super majority in the Senate. Now if you want to twist numbers, more democrats voted in favor of it than Republicans in both houses of Congress.

But I can't say you lied because you used those percentages that way, but you must be feeling prettystupid claiming you caught me in a lie with that BS.

Back to one of your earlier lies.....

You pretended you were familiar with Jonah Goldberg's scholarly tome, "Liberal Fascism," referring to it in a deprecating manner.

Why do you Liberals stoop to that sort of fabrication?

Why not either read it, or not refer to it at all...or, possibly quote some review?

Don't you see that as a lie?
Is that what you learned in government school?


It occurs frequently with Ann Coulter.


You seem to verify this thought from Nancy Pearcy...
"Students who develop a suffocating sense of superiority, who pass judgment on authors as racist, sexist, capitalist, imperialist or homophobic before even reading their works. Political correctness is not designed to produce students who think for themselves, but, rather, cadres of self-absorbed reactionaries ready to take their orders from ‘the movement.’
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter eight.

He was motivated by the fact that right wing nut job's were always being associated with the Nazi, so he set out to propagandize that it was the other way around. RWNJ's lapped it up.....However his so called scholarly work is nothing of the sort.

The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

An Academic Book — Not!

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions

Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Now....that's a much better...and more informed....job.


On the other hand....if you pick up a copy of the book itself, you will see it to be well documented.
And...on the contrary...it is a scholarly work.

He's a hack, and you love it of course. He knows fascism roughly as well as you do meaning, not at all.

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Did you read the book?


Have you ever read any book???????


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Coulter's books are worthless propaganda. Written to fool people like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

5. Now...about the correct usage of "Fascist,".....it is a collectivist, statist doctrine.

That means a belief in a centralized government that dictates every aspect of its citizens existence, citizens who are expected to march in lock-step.


"..... but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

The dichotomy that is today’s political reality is based on this retreat, asthe American left simply flipped from the brown-shirt utopians to the red-flag utopians, parroting Stalin’s rhetoric: anything objectionable is fascist."
Goldberg






As America was founded on a very different belief set....i.e., individualism, and limited constitutional government, neither the Founders, nor classical liberals- who would be called conservatives today, can be identified as "Fascists."

Clearly a no-no!


No doubt all sorts of terms, scatological and otherwise, are used by opponents....and many are arguable....but Fascist is clearly incorrect, a bogus attempt to sound educated....you know, less a 'barnyardism.'






6. Further, no ideology which does not include defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society would be accurate.


Thus....conservatives cannot be Fascists, communists, Modern Liberals, socialists, Nazis or Progressives.



So sorry.

Agree with your definition of fascism.

But conservatives after 1935 have supported fascistic policies.

But even before 1935 they supported the federal reserve act and the heavy graduated "income" tax.

After 1935 conservatives have supported warmongering, imperialism. the civil war on drug users, blue laws, laws against prostitution, laws against abortion,


ONLY the Libertarians support the Constitution (1787) and freedom across the board.


.

You agree with her that JFK and Bobby Kennedy were fascists?

In what way were they fascists?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Back to one of your earlier lies.....

You pretended you were familiar with Jonah Goldberg's scholarly tome, "Liberal Fascism," referring to it in a deprecating manner.

Why do you Liberals stoop to that sort of fabrication?

Why not either read it, or not refer to it at all...or, possibly quote some review?

Don't you see that as a lie?
Is that what you learned in government school?


It occurs frequently with Ann Coulter.


You seem to verify this thought from Nancy Pearcy...
"Students who develop a suffocating sense of superiority, who pass judgment on authors as racist, sexist, capitalist, imperialist or homophobic before even reading their works. Political correctness is not designed to produce students who think for themselves, but, rather, cadres of self-absorbed reactionaries ready to take their orders from ‘the movement.’
Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter eight.

He was motivated by the fact that right wing nut job's were always being associated with the Nazi, so he set out to propagandize that it was the other way around. RWNJ's lapped it up.....However his so called scholarly work is nothing of the sort.

The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

An Academic Book — Not!

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions

Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Now....that's a much better...and more informed....job.


On the other hand....if you pick up a copy of the book itself, you will see it to be well documented.
And...on the contrary...it is a scholarly work.

He's a hack, and you love it of course. He knows fascism roughly as well as you do meaning, not at all.

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Did you read the book?


Have you ever read any book???????


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Coulter's books are worthless propaganda. Written to fool people like you.

You've read.....which of the dozen scholarly best sellers?

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He was motivated by the fact that right wing nut job's were always being associated with the Nazi, so he set out to propagandize that it was the other way around. RWNJ's lapped it up.....However his so called scholarly work is nothing of the sort.

The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

An Academic Book — Not!

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions

Review: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Now....that's a much better...and more informed....job.


On the other hand....if you pick up a copy of the book itself, you will see it to be well documented.
And...on the contrary...it is a scholarly work.

He's a hack, and you love it of course. He knows fascism roughly as well as you do meaning, not at all.

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Did you read the book?


Have you ever read any book???????


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Coulter's books are worthless propaganda. Written to fool people like you.

You've read.....which of the dozen scholarly best sellers?

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Scholarly? An idiot like yourself is going to tell us what is or isn't scholarly? That's one of the funniest assertions you've ever made.

Go bake some more cookies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....that's a much better...and more informed....job.


On the other hand....if you pick up a copy of the book itself, you will see it to be well documented.
And...on the contrary...it is a scholarly work.

He's a hack, and you love it of course. He knows fascism roughly as well as you do meaning, not at all.

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Did you read the book?


Have you ever read any book???????


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Coulter's books are worthless propaganda. Written to fool people like you.

You've read.....which of the dozen scholarly best sellers?

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Scholarly? An idiot like yourself is going to tell us what is or isn't scholarly? That's one of the funniest assertions you've ever made.

Go bake some more cookies.

Yup....scholarly.
And, as scholarly as you are a proven serial liar.



Let's put one more nail in your head....er, coffin:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.

To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated10 random footnotesfrom her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email mecuri@curi.us

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter




Smashed another custard pie in your kisser, huh?
Or....did I just "bake" you?

Don't ever change.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He's a hack, and you love it of course. He knows fascism roughly as well as you do meaning, not at all.

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Did you read the book?


Have you ever read any book???????


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Coulter's books are worthless propaganda. Written to fool people like you.

You've read.....which of the dozen scholarly best sellers?

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Scholarly? An idiot like yourself is going to tell us what is or isn't scholarly? That's one of the funniest assertions you've ever made.

Go bake some more cookies.

Yup....scholarly.
And, as scholarly as you are a proven serial liar.



Let's put one more nail in your head....er, coffin:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.

To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated10 random footnotesfrom her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email mecuri@curi.us

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter




Smashed another custard pie in your kisser, huh?
Or....did I just "bake" you?

Don't ever change.

Your posting history here easily disqualifies you from being any sort of legitimate judge of Coulter's scholarship.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Did you read the book?


Have you ever read any book???????


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Coulter's books are worthless propaganda. Written to fool people like you.

You've read.....which of the dozen scholarly best sellers?

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Scholarly? An idiot like yourself is going to tell us what is or isn't scholarly? That's one of the funniest assertions you've ever made.

Go bake some more cookies.

Yup....scholarly.
And, as scholarly as you are a proven serial liar.



Let's put one more nail in your head....er, coffin:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.

To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated10 random footnotesfrom her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email mecuri@curi.us

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter




Smashed another custard pie in your kisser, huh?
Or....did I just "bake" you?

Don't ever change.

Your posting history here easily disqualifies you from being any sort of legitimate judge of Coulter's scholarship.

Can you imagine who is pretending that he can judge my work????

There are things living on the bottom of ponds that are smarter than you are.

And, by now....most readers know that almost everything you post is a lie.

Isn't that so, NYLiar?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Coulter's books are worthless propaganda. Written to fool people like you.

You've read.....which of the dozen scholarly best sellers?

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Scholarly? An idiot like yourself is going to tell us what is or isn't scholarly? That's one of the funniest assertions you've ever made.

Go bake some more cookies.

Yup....scholarly.
And, as scholarly as you are a proven serial liar.



Let's put one more nail in your head....er, coffin:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.

To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated10 random footnotesfrom her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email mecuri@curi.us

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter




Smashed another custard pie in your kisser, huh?
Or....did I just "bake" you?

Don't ever change.

Your posting history here easily disqualifies you from being any sort of legitimate judge of Coulter's scholarship.

Can you imagine who is pretending that he can judge my work????

There are things living on the bottom of ponds that are smarter than you are.

And, by now....most readers know that almost everything you post is a lie.

Isn't that so, NYLiar?

Proving you wrong is one of the easiest exercises on this forum.

Let's go back to your charge that JFK and RFK were fascists.

I

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've read.....which of the dozen scholarly best sellers?

Dollars to donuts you're another windbag with strong views on a subject you know nothing about.

Scholarly? An idiot like yourself is going to tell us what is or isn't scholarly? That's one of the funniest assertions you've ever made.

Go bake some more cookies.

Yup....scholarly.
And, as scholarly as you are a proven serial liar.



Let's put one more nail in your head....er, coffin:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.

To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated10 random footnotesfrom her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email mecuri@curi.us

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter




Smashed another custard pie in your kisser, huh?
Or....did I just "bake" you?

Don't ever change.

Your posting history here easily disqualifies you from being any sort of legitimate judge of Coulter's scholarship.

Can you imagine who is pretending that he can judge my work????

There are things living on the bottom of ponds that are smarter than you are.

And, by now....most readers know that almost everything you post is a lie.

Isn't that so, NYLiar?

Proving you wrong is one of the easiest exercises on this forum.

Let's go back to your charge that JFK and RFK were fascists.

I

Please prove that you are a serial liar by being unable to find any such quote mentioning either Kennedy.


Waiting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Scholarly? An idiot like yourself is going to tell us what is or isn't scholarly? That's one of the funniest assertions you've ever made.

Go bake some more cookies.

Yup....scholarly.
And, as scholarly as you are a proven serial liar.



Let's put one more nail in your head....er, coffin:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.

To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated10 random footnotesfrom her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email mecuri@curi.us

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter




Smashed another custard pie in your kisser, huh?
Or....did I just "bake" you?

Don't ever change.

Your posting history here easily disqualifies you from being any sort of legitimate judge of Coulter's scholarship.

Can you imagine who is pretending that he can judge my work????

There are things living on the bottom of ponds that are smarter than you are.

And, by now....most readers know that almost everything you post is a lie.

Isn't that so, NYLiar?

Proving you wrong is one of the easiest exercises on this forum.

Let's go back to your charge that JFK and RFK were fascists.

I

Please prove that you are a serial liar by being unable to find any such quote mentioning either Kennedy.


Waiting.

You mentioned him when you made reference to all Democrats. Or all liberals. Kennedy was a liberal Democrat.

You have repeatedly called all Democrats and liberals Fascists.

Now let's hear you make you the case JFK was a Fascist.

btw, this is about the tenth time I've explained this to you. How thick is your skull, anyway?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup....scholarly.
And, as scholarly as you are a proven serial liar.



Let's put one more nail in your head....er, coffin:

"With Coulter, I did the same thing when reading her books. I investigated several of her claims. The difference is, with everyone else I found an error within the first few issues I investigated. With Coulter, I never found an error, so I decided she was a good scholar.

To be objective, I used a random method. I'd already tried checking things that stood out to me. This time I investigated10 random footnotesfrom her books. For each one, I picked a book, then I selected a chapter with a random number generator, then I went to the footnotes for that chapter and selected one with a random number generator. Whatever was randomly chosen, I committed to investigate it and reach a conclusion, even if it was hard; reselecting any footnotes would compromise objectivity.

This is not a perfect approach. If 1% of Coulter's footnotes are mistaken, I could miss it. Maybe she approaches her columns with a different respect for scholarship than the books I'm checking (why?). Maybe she has mistakes with no footnote. If I missed something, please tell me (with specifics!). Leave a comment below or email mecuri@curi.us

In my experience, I often find scholarship errors within the first three things I check for an author. Because errors are so common, I think a spot check like this is valuable. If you doubt how common errors are, I recommend you fact check some other authors. Plus, I've already read Coulter's books and checked a few claims I found suspicious, so adding random checking provides good variety and objectivity. And, while reading, I already had the opportunity to spot claims in her books that should have a footnote but don't, or notice other issues.

I checked 10 randomly selected footnotes from 5 Ann Coulter books. For each one, I present my analysis below and I score Coulter's scholarship from 0 to 5 points. Her final average score was 5, which is perfect. (I decided on the scoring system before I started.) I found no scholarship errors. Well done!

In addition to fact checking Coulter myself, I also reviewed other people's criticism and fact checking of Coulter.Click through for details; in summary, their own scholarship was terrible. Also, my friend fact checked one random Coulter cite I gave him, which was correct."
curi: Fact Checking Ann Coulter




Smashed another custard pie in your kisser, huh?
Or....did I just "bake" you?

Don't ever change.

Your posting history here easily disqualifies you from being any sort of legitimate judge of Coulter's scholarship.

Can you imagine who is pretending that he can judge my work????

There are things living on the bottom of ponds that are smarter than you are.

And, by now....most readers know that almost everything you post is a lie.

Isn't that so, NYLiar?

Proving you wrong is one of the easiest exercises on this forum.

Let's go back to your charge that JFK and RFK were fascists.

I

Please prove that you are a serial liar by being unable to find any such quote mentioning either Kennedy.


Waiting.

You mentioned him when you made reference to all Democrats. Or all liberals. Kennedy was a liberal Democrat.

You have repeatedly called all Democrats and liberals Fascists.

Now let's hear you make you the case JFK was a Fascist.

btw, this is about the tenth time I've explained this to you. How thick is your skull, anyway?

"You mentioned him blah blah blah...."

Well, then....provide any such quote with his name.

Or....simply change your avi to "CongenitalLiar"....it'll save folks time.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your posting history here easily disqualifies you from being any sort of legitimate judge of Coulter's scholarship.

Can you imagine who is pretending that he can judge my work????

There are things living on the bottom of ponds that are smarter than you are.

And, by now....most readers know that almost everything you post is a lie.

Isn't that so, NYLiar?

Proving you wrong is one of the easiest exercises on this forum.

Let's go back to your charge that JFK and RFK were fascists.

I

Please prove that you are a serial liar by being unable to find any such quote mentioning either Kennedy.


Waiting.

You mentioned him when you made reference to all Democrats. Or all liberals. Kennedy was a liberal Democrat.

You have repeatedly called all Democrats and liberals Fascists.

Now let's hear you make you the case JFK was a Fascist.

btw, this is about the tenth time I've explained this to you. How thick is your skull, anyway?

"You mentioned him blah blah blah...."

Well, then....provide any such quote with his name.

Or....simply change your avi to "CongenitalLiar"....it'll save folks time.....

When you make an inclusive statement, all who fit the description are included.

I understand your English is weak at best, so maybe you don't understand this use of the language.

And the fact that you don't simply say that you misspoke when you made the idiotic generalization that all Democrats are fascists is further evidence you want to stick by your idiotic generalization.