Coulter sounds off in latest book

Yahoo & AP ^ | Wed Sep 24,12:27 PM ET | By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer

[SONbrad]

You won't hear anyone FACTUALLY discredit her because they can't. What I love about Ann, besides the obvious, is that she uses the leftist's own words to destroy them and expose them for what they are.

I've read all of her books, including this one, and they are terrific!

[Morgan in Denver]

As usual, complaints long on liberal/Democrat theory and a failure to supply virtually anything in the way of proof of anything wrong. Typically, the Democrats are getting it wrong, again.

[Eala]

Really?! I must be getting old, then. Hm. Our minister begins Sunday services with a prayer in which the the word "prevent" has its old definition of "to go before," not "to block" -- and I understand that.

But a substantial number of the linguistic, um, changes in American English I see today look a lot more like ignorance (read: poor education) than anything else. "Cigarets" or "sigret's," they tell me sumbodi dint lern ta spel "cigarettes."

[sweetliberty]

"Everything isn't black and white," counters historian Radosh"

No, "everything" is not, but there are a great many things that are, and Ann does an exquisite job of pointing some of them out.

[netmilsmom]

Me too. If anything was FACTUALLY wrong, it would be screamed all over the media.

(catch my tagline-livin in lib land!)

[LibKill]

"Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it."

That is one good Tag Line.

There are many things that I refrain from doing, even though I have a perfect right to do them.

Most of them are issues of politeness (not political correctness). I just don't enjoy cr*pping on people, no matter how much they may deserve it.

[cwb]

"But despite bubbling sales and wells of success, Coulter has been faulted for research that is routinely sloppy and facts that are contrived."

While she may be accused of this, I have yet to see her critics take her on with regards to the facts. Compare that to Michael Moore (the documentarian) were you can find source after source that rebutts his facts. It's telling that these people claim Ann's research is contrived while Moore receives an Oscar for a fraudulent documentary.

[chudogg]

Actually, that has not been true for years. Most editors are leaning towards blond. You can use blonde optionally, but there is no such rule anymore in style books.

Those are just the same people who tell us not to say...

Stuartess--flight attendant

waitress--server

salesman--salesperson

african american--person of color.

Just more newspeak we conservatives should probably ignore.

And where did you ever learn to call it a cigaret?? My cigarettes right next to me dont have that.

[chudogg]

oh i get it now, cigaret would be a gender neutral term! LOL!!!

[glock rocks]

It is how she struck gold — her artful, attention-grabbing game of argument for argument's sake.

this gold digging writer is accusing Ann of being a gold digging writer. how quaint.

if ya ain't got a realistic intellectual argument with Ann, just dig up some media whore angle...
and who would know better how to do that, than a media whore, huh, frazier? oh, and be sure to point out the fact she's a knockout...
that'll dissuade any other rational analysis of the book, ya arrogant sexist puke.

[Imal]

Coulter sounds off in latest book

Silly me, I thought they were actually going to talk about her book.

[chudogg]

Perhaps Yahoo and the Associated Press should actually do research on what they're publishing, rather than accept Al Franken's word as gospel truth! Inasmuch as 5 minutes of research I debunked Franken's outright lie that they didnt care to check upon.

Here's one: On pages 265-266, Coulter blasts New York Times writer Thomas Friedman for opposing racial profiling in a December 2001 column.

But it turns out that Coulter misappropriated Friedman's words in a way that has nothing to do with racial profiling or anything else addressed in his column, as anyone who reads it will discover. His column actually drew the less-than-startling conclusion that a new age of terrorism threatens our personal safety and our free society.

Actually his column drew the less-than-intellecually invigorating conclusion that we should all fly airplanes naked! He even called the editorial NAKED AIR

But in the less-than-humorous article he flatly opposes racial profiling. On the subject of flying naked he states QOUTE " It's much more civilized than racial profiling." Can it get more clear than that??? Does this mean he doesnt oppose racial profiling? Even though he claims public nudity is "more civilized"?!

Friedman even pussy-foots around the issue, and cannot bring himself to say ISLAM EXTREMIST, but instead says "religious fundamentalists of any stripe".

One thing Ann Coulter did not go into was that in the article, Friedman basically makes the case that we need a Global Authoritorian goverment to control everyone with an iron fist "or we simply learn to live with much higher levels of risk than we've ever been used to before."

Good suggestion Tom!

And never more than right now, though she easily dismisses those who find fault with "Treason" as "people who haven't read it." In the case of Al Franken, at least, she's right.

Did Mr. Moore here even bother to ask Ann Coulter about this ludicrous claim!? I would suspect not, i just disproved it with 5 minutes of research, i doubt Ann would have problem at all!

Perhaps thats why she "dismisses those who find fault with "Treason" as "people who haven't read it."" All the claims of those who find fault with the book can simply be dismissed by actually OPENING THE BOOK and RESEARCHING IT!!

Somebody Ping this, Yahoo and the Associated Press, Mr. Moore and Al Franken need to be exposed for what they are..

BIG FAT

LIARS

[RDangerfield]

chudogg: oh i get it now, cigaret would be a gender neutral term! LOL!!!

Actually, no, schoolchildren complained for years that the words cigarette and brunette had a useless te on the end. Those original words are, after all, French, you know.
--Raoul

[RDangerfield]

chudogg: Stuartess--flight attendant

No, it's stewardess.
--Raoul

[chudogg]

Im still sticking to the gender neutral theory.

Cigar = male

cigarette = female

[Calvin Locke]

demonstrate factual error

Coulter was on one of my regular talk shows last week. She said she referred to the father of somebody [forgotten]. A critic
said "it wasn't his father, go ahead, call and ask him". She researched it again, and it was the somebody's grandfather.

And I think she said she was wrong on complaining/whining about the NYTs failure to mention [Dale] Earnhardt's death.
The Slimes did have it on page one.

My, my, these mistakes certainly reveal the entire book as one big lie.

And while we're pointing out mistakes, I reread one of my replies from last week. I typed "who's" instead of "whose".

Can I still continue to reply to messages?

[Bonaparte]

I think it's called "the exception proving the rule." It's just like when the gun grabbers could only find one thing in John Lott's book to harp on.

[halfdome]

Does anybody here honestly believe that all Democrats are traitors and Saddam loving America haters who want us to lose the war on terror and live under the rule of Islamic fundamentalists? There were over 50 million people who voted for Al Gore, and there are more registered Democrats than that. Her premise just silly.

[halfdome]

I think they refer to her as blond, because that is one of her trademarks. She is known for, among other things, her long blond hair, and as being one of the blond, conservative pundits on TV, along with Kellyanne Fitzpatrick and Laura Ingraham, and others. To consider the reference to her blond hair as bias is paranoid.

[halfdome]

If you do a google search you can find many articles refuting some claims in Coulter's books. For instance, in Slander she referred to a NY Times article and gave a quote from the article about how females don't need males anymore, footnoted the passage and used it to back up a claim about the liberal press. However, when the footnote was checked, the article noted was from the Science section of the paper and was referring to a certain species of insect. A lot of the actual passages and the related footnotes with discrepances can be found on the Daily Howler website.