They’re footnoted, so you have the ability to do that.
Coulter critics have definitedly found some questionable statistical conclusions. E.g., see the archives of www.DailyHowler.com. However, nobody has refuted her many striking quotes, fom liberals and from media people.
I’m not necessarily saying she’s lying; it’d be hard for my estimation of politicians to sink any lower, so I wouldn’t be surprised if her quotes were accurate. Nor would it surprise me to learn that Coulter manufactured both quotes and footnotes out of whole cloth. The woman has zero credibility at this point, which I guess means she’s qualified to run for Congress.
walks into standard looking Dem v Rep rant
reads post, finds December making relevant cites and convincing points against both Democrat and Republican stupidity
walks out, smiling
I have. The idiocy is palpable, but what else are you going to do when you’re stuck in your father’s car for a road trip through AM-radio country? First Dr. Laura, then Limbaugh, then Clark Whatsisname, the Consumer Warrior.
:eek:
Time to get down on my knees and thank G-O-D for the C-B-C.
Here are portions of one of the silicone viper’s recent columns:
“[L]iberals never reciprocate the love conservatives keep sending their way.”
“[Liberals] are wrong about *everything[/] [emphasis mine].”
She ends her diatribe with the following description of the Kennedy family:
“This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as “Camelot.”
Ahh, can’t you feel the love?
See, just goes to show you weren’t paying attention. In the hinterlands, Rush and Laura are both almost always played live, which means it is Rush and then Dr. Laura. Clark Howard never seems to be live so you can frequently catch him on tape at any hour of the day (it is similar with Dr. Dean Edell).
I done many, many road trips and listen to almost anything that isn’t music. Only Mike Savage will make me turn off the radio until I am in range of something else.
Bill O’Reilly seems to be taking over many of Dr. Laura’s live slots, though. Interestingly, when I was road tripping through BC last month, O’Reilly was the radio talk show I could most consistently get. (Well, that and CBC, but I was too afraid of falling asleep and driving into a tree to listen to that for long.)
So December, would these murderers of Americans be liberals?
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/bookman/2002/021402.html
Or the staff of the New York Times?
http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/frontpage5.asp
And then you actually claim that a book on Hillary Clinton titled “Hell To Pay” by Barbara Olsen is low-key??? Give me a freakin’ break!
And finally,
Are you really that dense? (Quick December, which newspaper gave glowing reviews to both Brock’s “The Real Anita Hill” and Coulter’s “Slander”? - Why, that bastion of liberalism, The New York Times!)
And as for Brock “switching allegences”, it’s not as if he switched from Pepsi to Coke; he completely repudiates his Anita Hill book and admits in his latest tome, “Blinded By The Right”, that he never bother to talk to a single Anita Hill supporter and relied solely on the rumors and lies provided to him by Thomas supporters, yet you still claim his book was “accurate”???
december, one thing about Ann Coulter is at least she doesn’t pretend to be civil.
Excuse my ignorance, but who exactly is Annie Coulter?
I tried this. I listened to him for a couple of weeks several years ago. I found myself literally yelling at the radio things like:
“That’s apples and oranges”
“You’re lumping together completely different groups”
“Sure, you find the one or two lone scientists whose viewpoints mesh with your politics and ignore all the rest”
“That’s the most ridiculous analogy I’ve ever heard”
“Can you say intellectually dishonest?”
“You can’t possbly be that stupid and still have a radio show”
I finally decided that it made no sense to listen to someone who taught me nothing, angered me, and possibly caused me to frighten other drivers, so I stopped listening.
Here’s the actual quote in context:
El Gui, I tend to agree with your criticism of her statement about executing Walker to “intimidate liberals.” She seems to be saying that liberals need to be intimidated so they won’t commit treason. I don’t interpret her statement as a demand to kill liberals, but implying that they’re apt to commit treason is hitting below the belt.
Yep. Here’s why. Two of Brock’s biggest critics were Jill Abramson and Jane Meyer. They wrote a book giving their own version of the Anita Hill hearings (Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas.) They also wrote a scathing indictment of The Real Anita Hill in IIRC The New York Review of Books.. Brock wrote a scathing indictment of their book in a conservative magazine, the American Spectator. I read both books and both articles.
Brock easily found dozens of errors in the Meyer/Abramson book. OTOH they didn’t lay a glove on him. Despite lots of adjectives, the only error they found was an incorrect location of some perirpheral individual. She was in a different city than he wrote when she made some public statement.
Abramson and Meyer are top-notch journalists. I believe they’ve both written for the Wall Street Journal and Meyer now writes for the New Yorker. The fact that these two top critics found only that one trivial error speaks very well for the book.
Incidentally, I haven’t read Blinded by the Right, and I don’t intend to. Perhaps someone who has read it can tell us whether it identifies specific false statements in The Real Anita Hill. If it does, I’d be more inclined to believe that Brock was actually lying in his earlier book.
El Gui, I suggest you get a hold of these two books and these two articles and make up your own mind.
Sorry December, Brock totally repudiates his criticisms of Meyer & Abramson in Blinded by the Right and admits his past book The Real Anita Hill was a total distortion. The really think you should read BBTR you may never look at the conservative establishment in the same way again.
Facts are facts. Did his repudiation of his criticisms of M & A include all the specific errors he pointed out in the American Spectator? Does it list all the hidden errors in TRAH? Otherwise, who cares?
ISTM that Brock’s conversion was done in a way that destroyed his reputation forever. Either he was writing vicious, mean-spirited lies for 20 years, and finally stopped. If so, why did he do that? It’s not as if the American Spetator paid well or had high prestige.
Alternatively, BBTR is filled with mean-spirited, vicious lies. Either way, he’s obviously untrustworthy. If he lists checkable facts in BBTR, that would be of interest to me. However, based on the reviews I’ve read, the book didn’t do that.
I generally like her columns (among other things), but I am somewhat right-wing. Your mileage may vary.
I don’t think it makes sense to bash liberal Americans as a whole because of the comments of a few – and that is exactly what Coulter does; however, it does make sense to bash Ann Coulter for the comments that she, herself, unrepentently makes.
I can’t control self-described liberals and force them never to make asses of themselves. That doesn’t mean that I am wrong, or that liberals or all wrong, or that – for some ungodly reason – we liberals are all active supporters of Al-Qaida. (If we were, why didn’t Al-Qaida attack some conservative target? Was the WTC the bastion of social conservatism that we and our terrorist masters were targeting?) Ann Coulter is a buffoon that succeeds for the same reason that Marilyn Manson does – she’s a media whore with no shame. Stop paying attention to her and she’ll go away.
If you like Ann Coulter, I think you’re more than “somewhat” right wing.
No offense, just pointing that out.
december, if the guy is a lying weasel, (as you more or less implied), then why do you believe ANYTHING he wrote?
Fair question. I tend to believe that Brock was reliable when he was conservative, because people didn’t find errors in his work. Lord knows, he wrote a lot of controversial stuff, so people must have tried to refute it. As I mentioned, experts tried and failed to refute The Real Anita Hill.
The silliest thing he said since changing stripes was to apologize for the Paula Jones business. His article in the American Spectator mentioned a potential scandal involving Clinton and someone named “Paula” back in Arkansas. That was the first public hint of this scandal. It was that article that motivated Paula Jones to file suit, she said. Yet, Brock has now gone back on that article, after events have confirmed it to the whole world. :rolleyes:
In addition, I have read articles disputing various detail in Blinded by the Left.
December, please read BBTR then make you comments.