Author Topic: Not everyone agrees with Ann Coulter (Read 1658 times)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #30 on:** July 26, 2002, 10:58:08 AM »

Most people hate their reflections in the mirror. Ann Coulter just holds up the mirror.

midnight Target · « **Reply #31 on:** July 26, 2002, 11:01:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Most people hate their reflections in the mirror. Ann Coulter just holds up the mirror.

Another blind follower.

She holds up the mirror but its one of those funhouse mirrors that distorts the truth and then she puts little mustaches on the faces just for fun. She's a liar, plain and simple.

Kieran · « **Reply #32 on:** July 26, 2002, 11:09:08 AM »

MT-

As I said, the writer makes some solid statements, then slides right down the path of insult- just as Coulter accuses. Did you miss that?

BTW, I love the "Atheist Left" comment... "it doesn't exist". LOL! Spin, baby...

midnight Target · « **Reply #33 on:** July 26, 2002, 11:13:47 AM »

Yeah he does go a little overboard Kieran, however,

If he proves that she is a liar, then calls her a liar, I would hardly call that sliding down the path of insults.

Kieran · « **Reply #34 on:** July 26, 2002, 11:25:03 AM »

What did Bill O'Reilly or Kaus have to do with the attack on Coulter? See how nicely they all get balled up together? Not that I am defending anyone really, but isn't this like lumping Paul Begala or James Carville up with any liberal spokesman?

I believe Coulter is guilty of generalizations, and also believe her book panders to the ultra-conservative mindset. That doesn't excuse rebuttals that do the same, of course, especially if those rebuttals are based on scorn for the nature of Coulter's work. Further, I couldn't care less for the rebuttals either, but I cannot help but see the parallel in the continuing debate between Hortlund vs. et al- Hortlund holds up a piece, calling it the Holy Grail. Et al rebut, and a member holds an equally flawed piece up and calls it the Holy Grail. Sprinkle in a liberal dose (pun intended) of character assassination and viscious personal attack, of course.

midnight Target · « **Reply #35 on:** July 26, 2002, 11:35:00 AM »

I cannot argue that there is no invective or generalization in the article. What I did see was about 50% of the article was factual statements supporting the idea that Coulter was a least stretching the truth as well as outright lieing. Coulter's article posted by Hortlund was directly quoted in many places and shown to be wrong... such as:

Coulter's contention that Delay was compared to Hitler due to his religious views... The actual quote used by Coulter was from a NYT editorial that was specifically talking about GWB and AL GORE!

Coulter's quote of Katie Couric calling Reagan an "Airhead".... Was (through the transcript of the broadcast) shown to be Couric quoting the authorized biographer of Reagan!

It seems obvious to me that Coulter has stepped over the line and has been caught red handed.

Kieran · « **Reply #36 on:** July 26, 2002, 11:47:13 AM »

Yup, totally agree with that.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #37 on:** July 26, 2002, 10:27:10 PM »

Hey Midnit Target, Yes I did read it, and here'e a larger quote from it

"Coulter is a crackpot, a clown—and a balls-out dissembler. Her procedures are an insult to the American public interest. And so we have a simple question for lazy O’Reilly and worthless Kaus. Nobody made you host a TV show. Nobody forced you to go on the web. But boys, are you here to perform your actual duties? Or are you really just here to f*ck around?

SNEAK PREVIEW: Did Couric call Reagan an “airhead?” (No.) Did she attribute that claim to biographer Edmund Morris? (Yes.) As you probably know, Coulter is currently riding this topic as she angrily tours the country. It’s the topic O’Reilly snored through last night. Kaus pretended to review this same topic."

In those two paragraphs, the author used schoolyard namecalling tactics. That is what I was refering to. And Coulter did attribute the Airhead statement to the Today show quoting an author who was to be a guest on the show. But they were so enamored with the quote that they opened the show with it for several days.

It is the slant that she and CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg were referring to in their respective books.

And Bernard Goldberg is an avowed liberal...

Thrawn · « **Reply #38 on:** July 26, 2002, 11:47:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hey Midnit Target, Yes I did read it, and here'e a larger quote from it

In those two paragraphs, the author used schoolyard namecalling tactics.

Dude, you just called Target a Midnit.

midnight Target · « **Reply #39 on:** July 27, 2002, 08:18:14 AM »

What the hell is a midnit?

HM, you have gone to a great deal of trouble to show that the article is slanted against Coulter...... duh!

What you seem to have ignored are all of the inaccuracies cited in the article, and that they all add up to the fact that Coulter is a lieing sac-O-crap who is using the same invective she so heartily abhores to sell people like you a book. Go buy it. Maybe she'll write another so we can make fun of that one too.

Kieran · « **Reply #40 on:** July 27, 2002, 08:43:08 AM »

So... is there or is there not an "Atheist Left".

And... what is the proper context of Dowd's observation and comparisons of Bush Jr. and Al Gore to Hitler? Was it based on religion, the use of religion, or what?

Thrawn · « **Reply #41 on:** July 27, 2002, 09:41:27 AM »

And why do they never talk about the "athiest right" or "religous left" for that matter.

Coulter is a lying, hypocritical twit, probably trying to become famous and make a buck.

Reviewer guy is just a hypocritical twit, probably trying to become famous and make a buck.

The guy who reviewed the review of the reviewer guy, needs to get out of the house.

Maybe we should think about why the fek, we give a watermelon what these people think.

midnight Target · « **Reply #42 on:** July 27, 2002, 09:46:54 AM »

Are there "atheist leftists"? Yes of course. Do they exist as a political entity just like the Christian Right? No way. You and I can both think of many Politically motivated groups who base their membership and beliefs on those of the Christian Right. The Christian Coalition for one. Can you name an "atheist left" group that limits its beliefs to those of the atheist left?

There may be many left wing groups who will happily accept atheist members, but they will also accept members of all religious faiths.

And please don't throw in the American Atheist Party or other minor players, and I won't mention the KKK. You and I both know that those fringe groups are not what we are discussing.

Thrawn · « **Reply #43 on:** July 27, 2002, 10:44:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Can you name an "atheist left" group that limits its beliefs to those of the atheist left?

There may be many left wing groups who will happily accept atheist members, but they will also accept members of all religious faiths.

And please don't throw in the American Atheist Party or other minor players, and I won't mention the KKK. You and I both know that those fringe groups are not what we are discussing.

How about the commies?

midnight Target · « **Reply #44 on:** July 27, 2002, 11:26:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn

How about the commies?

Their ok, but I don't think they have the pitching to go the distance.