Ann Coulter (Theres Something Wrong With Her) Rewrites History.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Ann is on the money 99% of the time...shes obviously well read, and watches politics VERY closely...I for one enjoy her work...


Let me get this straight you enjoy being lied to thou the
media?




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
She has sources (I dont know if you've read her books)


Actually, I have read her books. And yes she does have sources. Unfortunately, (as with the vast majority of what she says) her writings are completely and utterly unfounded.

I suggest you read Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", which has devoted 3 entire chapters to the abomination that is Ann Coulter. Go here to learn more about Coulter's "sources".



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Al Fraken never lies, though, huh? He's a douchebag of the highest level. Anyone who reads something by a Franken, Moore, Coulter, or Limbaugh and believes it without doing extra research is just as biased as they are.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Al Fraken never lies, though, huh?


Your implication is inconsequential. Al Franken was correct in his investigation of Coulter's book. In other words, his statements on this issue were truthful.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
They were truthful according to you. Franken does the very things he accuses Coulter of.

I personally don't care to read what one spin-doctor says about another. I'm sure someone could find reviews of Coulter's book by less biased sources that would give a better indication.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I personally don't care to read what one spin-doctor says about another. I'm sure someone could find reviews of Coulter's book by less biased sources that would give a better indication.


Actually Al Franken does quite an impartial fact check on her. He uses transcipts from LexisNexis to go over her talking points and compares them to verified sources.

For example, she attacks the NYT for not running a story on its front page and shows that it is liberal and elite for not running it. Al pulls an archived shot of the NYT front page with aforementioned story in bold on it.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Al Fraken never lies, though, huh? He's a douchebag of the highest level. Anyone who reads something by a Franken, Moore, Coulter, or Limbaugh and believes it without doing extra research is just as biased as they are.


The pundit cesspool extends well beyond this "Rather" pedestrian list comprised, but it doesn't amount to a Hill(ary) of beans (or Deans) as far as I'm concerned.

Carry on.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Actually Al Franken does quite an impartial fact check on her. He uses transcipts from LexisNexis to go over her talking points and compares them to verified sources.

For example, she attacks the NYT for not running a story on its front page and shows that it is liberal and elite for not running it. Al pulls an archived shot of the NYT front page with aforementioned story in bold on it.


Are these the same fact checkers who tried to disprove where O'Reilly grew up?

www.frankenlies.com...

If you want to attack Coulter, I want to hear the same things about Franken. Otherwise, you're just a bunch of whiny liberals.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I wouldn't spend a dime on a book by either Coulter or Franken. If I want to see Al Franken, I'll watch SNL reruns.

As for Coulter, I just never want to see her. She's kind of scary......



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
If you want to attack Coulter, I want to hear the same things about Franken. Otherwise, you're just a bunch of whiny liberals.

So you are willing to put up with someone on TV who dosnt have a clue what she is talking about?
I guess your another mindless zombie . In this case you need Ann Coulter to tell you what to think.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
What's wrong with Ann? She's intelligent, edgy, and usually correct!



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
xpert11

I believe I already said Coulter isn't reliable. I believe I called her a spin-doctor. I just don't think some of the people in this topic, like you, are any better. You don't care about truth, or what's biased or not. You just care about what fits your agenda.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
She's just a little extreme for me. She may have some good points but the manner in which she presents herself, prevents me from actually paying attention to her.

I think that a lots of the 'extreme' pundits, use that persona to make the money. As for her usually being correct, she doesn't look at things from more than one angle, and the world is very rarely black and white. I have little time for people who are unable to see another viewpoint.

I have been happy to see that you, dj, are not one of those, at least not when we've had discussions



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I believe I already said Coulter isn't reliable. I believe I called her a spin-doctor. I just don't think some of the people in this topic, like you, are any better. You don't care about truth, or what's biased or not. You just care about what fits your agenda.


With all do respect you dont have a clue about my political views and I am sorry If I came down on you to hard after all some of us whiny liberals are willing to admit when were wrong. Nice to know your not a zombie you could be in danger thou.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
She's just a little extreme for me. She may have some good points but the manner in which she presents herself, prevents me from actually paying attention to her.

I think that a lots of the 'extreme' pundits, use that persona to make the money. As for her usually being correct, she doesn't look at things from more than one angle, and the world is very rarely black and white. I have little time for people who are unable to see another viewpoint.

I have been happy to see that you, dj, are not one of those, at least not when we've had discussions


She's just making a name for herself and selling her books. These cable news talking head analysts come a dime a dozen nowadays. She uses her over-the-top rhetoric to be memorable so people buy her books. I can't think of a liberal analyst on TV that can quite keep up with Ann's style. They all come off like they just sucked a lemon like Katrina van den Heuvel and Eleanor Clift.

Edit to add:

I used to like Susan Estrich but I think she was permanently emotionally scarred by the re-election of Bush and she's just a ranting lunatic lately.

[edit on 1/30/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Exactly. They're all biased, every single one of them. She does well because she's a blonde female conservative, and looks nicer than most of the usual crowd of pundits to the average American male. Is it any wonder she's popular? It's called hormones.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
What people have to realise is that one man's belief and truth is another mans lie and fallacy. It's always going to be like this as we believe those opposed to our viewpoint are ignorant and need to be educated and shown the light and visa versa.

Coulter, though is pure evil. Whoever says Moore and Coulter are as bad as eachother think this through :

Moore : Doesn't want nukes
Coulter : Wants to nuke millions who oppose America and her views

Moore : respects others right to religion
Coulter : wants to forcibly convert other religions to christianity

et cetera et cetera. Sure they both distort the truth for their own ends (we call this viewpoint) but it's clear to me who is the lesser of the two.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
My reason for preferring Michael Moore to Ann Coulter is quite simple. Ann Coulter wants to take my country over, and insults us all the time, and Michael Moore doesn't. Enough reason for me.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
My reason for preferring Michael Moore to Ann Coulter is quite simple. Ann Coulter wants to take my country over, and insults us all the time, and Michael Moore doesn't. Enough reason for me.


Ann just wants western Canada. She likes the idea of bringing the ski resorts and conservative cowboys into the union. I guess she wants to ship the rest of y'all off to France.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I thought you all might like this, she really is nuts


Ann Coulter on McCarthyism

thanks,
drfunk





top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join