The Definitive Critical Race Theory Thread

[Stryder50]

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.

It's not her scholarship, but her deliberately confusing people with facts. Like saying the poor don't pay taxes, and citing the bottom 50% of people pay zero federal income tax.

While true, it doesn't reflect all the other taxes the bottom 50% pay. We've seen how the top earners end up paying zero in federal income tax for years.

Yes, Leftists and psuedo "liberals" are often and easily confused with facts. They prefer feelings instead. Also, Coulter engages in "Conservative Speak" and most Leftists/Socialists don't understand or accept that. As Coulter and other Conservative writers point out, it is mostly the Conservative Right which produces wealth, and money not paid in taxes usually goes into the wealth-producing side of the economy providing for increased prosperity.

Leftists/Socialists are focused on wealth redistribution (legalized theft) and very less so on creation and fail to understand that taxes on producers wind up being included in the costs of goods and services the wealth creators provide. One aspect of "trickle down economics" is that ultimately taxes are paid for by the consumers.

BTW, you might try documenting with sources and sites your garbled and distorted claims taxes and whom pays what/how much.

 

[Stryder50]

Footnote to post #519 above.
Note the Arab/Muslim component of the slave trade (and that some Muslim nations still have legal slavery today).

 

[Stryder50]

FYI ~ FWIW

Top 5 African Countries Where Slavery Is Still Rampant​

Top 5 African Countries Where Slavery Is Still Rampant

Systems of servitude are still common across the African continent, as they were years ago. Here are the 5 African countries that still practice slavery.

face2faceafrica.com

(Mauritania, Sudan, Libya, Egypt, South Africa)

15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal​

15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal

Despite the horrible truths and reality of modern day slavery, many will be shocked to find that little to no action is taken by governments.

www.theclever.com

Countries That Still Have Slavery 2021​

Countries that Still Have Slavery 2024

Countries That Still Have Slavery​

Modern Countries That Still Have Slavery | The Borgen Project

There are 167 countries that still have slavery and around 46 million slaves today. Here is a list of the six countries with the most slaves along with an exploration of the disturbing figures.

borgenproject.org

More listed here;

which nations still have legal slavery at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[badger2]

‘During a particular tense moment at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, when some were threatening secession over the possibility of abolition, Edmund Randolph delivered a speech noting the difference:

Where is the part [of the Constitution] that has a tendency to the aboliton of slavery? Is it the clause which says that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808”? This is an exception from the power of regulating commerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808. Then Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future importations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were it right here to mention what passed in convention on that occasion, I might tell you that the southern states, even South Carolina herself, conceived this property to be secure by these words. I believe, whatever we may think here, that there is not a member of the Virginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of slavery.

Randolph was right: the Constitution did not prohibit slavery. It would prohibit slavery later, but that would require a war and constitutional amendments....But abolition was not a goal of the 1787 Constitution; uniting the colonies into one nations - the United States - was....Americans tend to forget that the amendments they so often cite actually (amended [italics]) the Constitution. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments ended slavery as an institution, while slavery’s supporters continued to cite the holy, unalterable, infallible word of god.’
(Seidel, The Founding Myth, p.201-2)

 

[woodwork201]

>Systemic and institutionalized racism has been proven over and over and over. That's what CRT does.

That's a logical fallacy. CRT is a "theory;" it doesn't prove squat. It propels a racist narrative.

I'm OK with about 5 minutes discussion that racism still exists and that we're not perfect as a nation in an all day class about the great things that our nation has done that no nation in the world has done for accepting all people of all races and religions.

Yet, when you ask for any laws, or examples of racism, the best they can come up with is unequal distribution in various areas.


Here is a typical Biden voter showing his belief in identical group-abilities and aims:

“White Privilege is evident in the distribution of wealth and power in America, historically-based and perpetuated via laws, educational advantages, inherited wealth, Good Ol' Boy networks, racial prejudices, etc., but some Whites are disgruntled because they do not believe they share in it.” The Myth Of White Privilege post #77

And, of course, there are no such laws in America.







Again: It is based on the premise that all groups are equal in the ways that shape economic, social, and political outcomes for groups and that therefore all differences in group outcomes are artificial and indefensible. That premise is factually wrong.

"If there were a contest for the most stupid idea in politics, my choice would be the assumption that people would be evenly or randomly distributed in incomes, institutions, occupations or awards, in the absence of somebody doing somebody wrong."​

Thomas Sowell - The Dumbest Idea​

“systemic racism” and “institutional racism” are anti-American myths spread by oppression-model dogmatists. Ever since the ascendance of Bernie Sanders, the platforms of the Democrat Party have been shaped by these myths. Thus the 2016 platform regards social and economic disparities as prima facie evidence of racial or gender oppression and attributes such disparities not to individual decisions, capabilities, and performances, but to unidentified “policies” which, if they actually existed, would be illegal. Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities​

Did you click Reply on the wrong post?

No.


Did you miss this:
"Yet, when you ask for any laws, or examples of racism, the best they can come up with is unequal distribution in various areas.


Here is a typical Biden voter showing his belief in identical group-abilities and aims:"

Got it. Sorry for the misread last night.

 

[woodwork201]

FYI ~ FWIW

Top 5 African Countries Where Slavery Is Still Rampant​

Top 5 African Countries Where Slavery Is Still Rampant

Systems of servitude are still common across the African continent, as they were years ago. Here are the 5 African countries that still practice slavery.

face2faceafrica.com

(Mauritania, Sudan, Libya, Egypt, South Africa)

15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal​

15 Countries Where Slavery Is Still Legal

Despite the horrible truths and reality of modern day slavery, many will be shocked to find that little to no action is taken by governments.

www.theclever.com

Countries That Still Have Slavery 2021​

Countries that Still Have Slavery 2024

Countries That Still Have Slavery​

Modern Countries That Still Have Slavery | The Borgen Project

There are 167 countries that still have slavery and around 46 million slaves today. Here is a list of the six countries with the most slaves along with an exploration of the disturbing figures.

borgenproject.org

More listed here;

which nations still have legal slavery at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

I don't have time to read your links tonight but do they include the United States and Mexico as slave holding nations today? Thanks to The Biden/Harris presidency, both are.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

View attachment 511748

this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.

Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......



Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.



As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:

"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 investigated 10 random footnotes from 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 me [email protected]

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."

Curiosity – Fact Checking Ann Coulter

Curiosity blog about philosophy and reason

curi.us

I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...


Reviewing her critics: Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics





a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken





Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.

Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.

You are one of the most prolific right wing BS shovelers I've come across in awhile. Your intellectual myopia and revisionism is truly a pathetic site to behold. As for Coulter's "scholarly works":

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

And for Coulter in general:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

‘During a particular tense moment at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, when some were threatening secession over the possibility of abolition, Edmund Randolph delivered a speech noting the difference:

Where is the part [of the Constitution] that has a tendency to the aboliton of slavery? Is it the clause which says that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808”? This is an exception from the power of regulating commerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808. Then Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future importations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were it right here to mention what passed in convention on that occasion, I might tell you that the southern states, even South Carolina herself, conceived this property to be secure by these words. I believe, whatever we may think here, that there is not a member of the Virginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of slavery.

Randolph was right: the Constitution did not prohibit slavery. It would prohibit slavery later, but that would require a war and constitutional amendments....But abolition was not a goal of the 1787 Constitution; uniting the colonies into one nations - the United States - was....Americans tend to forget that the amendments they so often cite actually (amended [italics]) the Constitution. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments ended slavery as an institution, while slavery’s supporters continued to cite the holy, unalterable, infallible word of god.’
(Seidel, The Founding Myth, p.201-2)

"Where is the part [of the Constitution] that has a tendency to the aboliton of slavery?"

... the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 511748

this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.

Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......



Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.



As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:

"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 investigated 10 random footnotes from 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 me [email protected]

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."

Curiosity – Fact Checking Ann Coulter

Curiosity blog about philosophy and reason

curi.us

I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...


Reviewing her critics: Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics





a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken





Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.

Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.

You are one of the most prolific right wing BS shovelers I've come across in awhile. Your intellectual myopia and revisionism is truly a pathetic site to behold. As for Coulter's "scholarly works":

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

And for Coulter in general:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

I am the very font of truth and knowledge, and the only fact-checker you will ever need.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 511748

this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.

Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......



Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.



As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:

"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 investigated 10 random footnotes from 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 me [email protected]

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."

Curiosity – Fact Checking Ann Coulter

Curiosity blog about philosophy and reason

curi.us

I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...


Reviewing her critics: Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics





a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken





Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.

Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.

You are one of the most prolific right wing BS shovelers I've come across in awhile. Your intellectual myopia and revisionism is truly a pathetic site to behold. As for Coulter's "scholarly works":

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

And for Coulter in general:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Politifact is a Democrat agency.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a w...

www.redstate.com

 

[badger2]

View attachment 511748

this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.

Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......



Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.



As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:

"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 investigated 10 random footnotes from 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 me [email protected]

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."

Curiosity – Fact Checking Ann Coulter

Curiosity blog about philosophy and reason

curi.us

I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...


Reviewing her critics: Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics





a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken





Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.

Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.

You are one of the most prolific right wing BS shovelers I've come across in awhile. Your intellectual myopia and revisionism is truly a pathetic site to behold. As for Coulter's "scholarly works":

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

And for Coulter in general:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Politifact is a Democrat agency.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a w...

www.redstate.com

Progressive dems are disgusting, pseudoelitist organisms who poetize themselves as being on the cutting edge. The literally embody the precarious idea of monopoly rents.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 511748

this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.

Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......



Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.



As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:

"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 investigated 10 random footnotes from 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 me [email protected]

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."

Curiosity – Fact Checking Ann Coulter

Curiosity blog about philosophy and reason

curi.us

I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...


Reviewing her critics: Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics





a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken





Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.

Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.

You are one of the most prolific right wing BS shovelers I've come across in awhile. Your intellectual myopia and revisionism is truly a pathetic site to behold. As for Coulter's "scholarly works":

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

And for Coulter in general:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Politifact is a Democrat agency.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a w...

www.redstate.com

Progressive dems are disgusting, pseudoelitist organisms who poetize themselves as being on the cutting edge. The literally embody the precarious idea of monopoly rents.

But they are winning.

.Today the Democrats control every major cultural institution…media, government, education, economy, family, religion, arts and entertainment,….all the means of dissemination of information.


They even sing about it...


Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah Rolling Stones, Sympathy For The Devil

 

[badger2]

The dem embodiment of monopoly rents, where the latter reifies a certain real estate with accompanying exhorbitant, illusory monetary attachments. This is the prudish aspect of dem promiscuity. The promiscuous aspect, can even afford and allow real-estate-mutating riots with impunity.

 

[badger2]

The signifiers have been mutated, theologized, to include religious tenets to reinforce an either/or, inclusive-exclusive approach, though politically Lucifer = the Left. Socialists care more about movement than thinking, so blm-antifa baboonism is just this prescription for movement, destructive movement against improvements on the real estate that non-selfish Americans have accomplished. This is the essence of Chodorov‘s essay, What Individualism Is Not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I’m A Middle School Teacher And See How Critical Race Curriculum Is Creating Racial Hostility In School​

I love being a teacher and I care a great deal about my students, almost all of whom are non-white. This past 2020/21 school year was a sad and worrisome turning point for me as an educator. Providence K-8 teachers were introduced to one of the most racially divisive, hateful, and in large part, historically inaccurate curriculums I have ever seen in my teaching career.

Yes, I am speaking about the controversial critical race theory that has infiltrated our public schools here in Rhode Island under the umbrella of Culturally Responsive learning and teaching, which includes a focus on identities. You won’t see the words “critical race theory” on the materials, but those are the concepts taught. The new, racialized curriculum and materials focuses almost exclusively on an oppressor-oppressed narrative, and have created racial tensions among students and staff where none existed before.

During fall 2020 semester, we were given our curriculum timeline on the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. I noticed the stories and books seemed to focus almost exclusively on slavery and racism. Those are appropriate topics that we always have taught, but the focus has become narrow, excluding many other aspects of our history."

I’m A Middle School Teacher And See How Critical Race Curriculum Is Creating Racial Hostility In School

Providence, RI: Some Students Have Started Calling Me “America” Because I’m White, and Colleagues Accuse Me of Having “White Privilege.”

legalinsurrection.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another professor who professes racism, and should be fired.

 

[Catman51]

SweetSue92

All that needs to be known about this is the CRT really stands for "create racial tension", but liberals never admit their actual goals on race.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

View attachment 511748

this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.

Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......



Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.



As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:

"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 investigated 10 random footnotes from 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 me [email protected]

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."

Curiosity – Fact Checking Ann Coulter

Curiosity blog about philosophy and reason

curi.us

I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...


Reviewing her critics: Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics





a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken





Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.

Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.

You are one of the most prolific right wing BS shovelers I've come across in awhile. Your intellectual myopia and revisionism is truly a pathetic site to behold. As for Coulter's "scholarly works":

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

And for Coulter in general:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

I am the very font of truth and knowledge, and the only fact-checker you will ever need.

translation: The Defiant One just factually handed me my ass on a platter, so all I've got left is a severely lame & childish retort.

Carry on.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

View attachment 511748

this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.

Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......



Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.



As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:

"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 investigated 10 random footnotes from 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 me [email protected]

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."

Curiosity – Fact Checking Ann Coulter

Curiosity blog about philosophy and reason

curi.us

I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...


Reviewing her critics: Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics





a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken





Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.

Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.

You are one of the most prolific right wing BS shovelers I've come across in awhile. Your intellectual myopia and revisionism is truly a pathetic site to behold. As for Coulter's "scholarly works":

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

And for Coulter in general:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Politifact is a Democrat agency.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a w...

www.redstate.com

1. So it should be NO PROBLEM to FACTUALLY disprove the EXACT examples that Politi-Fact presents in my previous post regarding Coulter. If you can't, then you have to concede the "broken clock" theory to even those you don't like. Sure Politifact has been wrong at times, but I've also disagreed with some of their consensus. It's not unlike the right wing bullhorn to emphasize errors....makes for good press for everyone. But then again, there's this; Is PolitiFact biased? This content analysis says no - Poynter

2. I noticed that you didn't DARE touch the dissection of Coulter's works by the academic scholar. I wonder why?

3. Peter Roff, for all his experience and expertise, is in the end just another pedigreed right wing wonk who is on record defending the likes of Gingrich, Reagan and Cheeto Jeezus.
Peter Roff - SourceWatch

For the objective reader; just google "Peter Roff media matters" to get an idea of what side of the fence Roff comes down on every time.

It's like this, sweet pea.....your prolific responses are useless if you are NOT addressing the EXACT issues being presented. You want to attack credibility, fine. But that should intake ALL THE FACTS, and not just the ones you like. Carry on.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

View attachment 511748

this cartoon and your quote from Coulter (given Coulter's documented stupidity) says it all.

Can you list which of Coulter's dozen scholarly best sellers you have read......



Or have we just proven you to be our best source of Greenhouse Gases.



As to her 'scholarly' writing, a reviewer writes:

"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 investigated 10 random footnotes from 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 me [email protected]

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."

Curiosity – Fact Checking Ann Coulter

Curiosity blog about philosophy and reason

curi.us

I've already shown you to be a dishonest, slanderous windbag....now it's time to bury you...


Reviewing her critics: Curiosity – Reviewing Ann Coulter's Critics





a fact check of an attack on Coulter's scholarship. Read it if you want: Fact Checking Al Franken





Once again we find you not to be a thinker, simply a recording machine of Democrat talking points.

Stick to your job as Garden Gnome.

You are one of the most prolific right wing BS shovelers I've come across in awhile. Your intellectual myopia and revisionism is truly a pathetic site to behold. As for Coulter's "scholarly works":

Does Ann Coulter Know What She's Talking About? | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

And for Coulter in general:

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Politifact is a Democrat agency.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

PolitiFact's liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)

PolitiFact this week judged statements about the Arizona immigration law and Climategate. Guess what side these fact-checkers chose? If you guessed “Progressive/Democrat,” you’re a w...

www.redstate.com

Progressive dems are disgusting, pseudoelitist organisms who poetize themselves as being on the cutting edge. The literally embody the precarious idea of monopoly rents.

But they are winning.

.Today the Democrats control every major cultural institution…media, government, education, economy, family, religion, arts and entertainment,….all the means of dissemination of information.


They even sing about it...


Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah Rolling Stones, Sympathy For The Devil

These circle jerks of the willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn right wing wonks are sometimes almost too pathetic to watch.