..Coulter Tells Leno She Wears Liberal Contempt as 'a Badge of Honor' June 15, 2006
Posted on 06/16/2006 5:05:55 PM PDT by ChessExpert
“As he turned to assault the next bunker an NVA machine gun opened up and he was mortally wounded. Captain Sosa-Camejo's valorous action and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army."
From his limousine Michael Moore sneers at this Cuban-American and his Band of Brothers as wimps and crybabies "with a yellow stripe down their backs."
Maybe I'm biased, but nothing – absolutely nothing – Ann Coulter has said about Murtha, Kerry or McClellan strikes me as remotely comparable in vileness, cowardice and rank stupidity as Michael Moore's blanket calumny against some of the bravest men of the 20th century.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I got punished by Sam Hill the other night, he evicted me from his ping list! Seeing him in action here makes me glad. I guess you could say I was a Sam Hillbot until then, I thought his stuff was solid. He provides original material, and that is what we signed up for.
He used his ping list to gang-pile on another FReeper. His position in that argument appears to have been correct, but calling in the posse (who never showed up!) was weak. I got FReepmails thanking me for speaking up, Sam Hill "has gotten too big for his britches" was the comment that stuck out the most.
His ping: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648768/posts?page=532#532
I responded at #572, and by #575 it was ovah!
I'm more inclined to think that she causes moderates not to like her, but I guess you'd have to ask them.
Not really. You seem to be operating on the premise that those of us who find her inflammatory comments detrimental disagree with her overall message. I can only speak for myself, obviously. I think Ann is intelligent and is right, but her delivery is burdensome and counterproductive. There is enough there without having to wallow.
You've got my vote, mjolnir.
I realize now that the TITLE of this thread may be worth 3100 reads on a Friday night. The artice is good too!
By the way, my internet connection is getting spotty, so good night and thanks for all the fun.
Well, I agree and disagree. I don't put Ann in the same category as Rush. Rush and others change minds by sound reason, not hyperbole. Rush's sense of humor stops short of the overblown, and is certainly not hysterical.
As for the "entirely circumstantial" evidence, Coplon, a federal employee, was arrested while meeting with a Russian agent. Coplon had not taken the classified documents from her purse, and was not handing them to him. In another five minutes she probably would have, and of course the meeting itself was damning (but circumstantial) evidence. Yes, Soviet cables confirmed that Coplon was a Soviet agent — but for security reasons, the government had not used those cables as evidence.
Hmm...sound like the review DID say the evidence was circumstantial - although Ann was correct. The woman was there to hand over classified documents in her purse. That MAY qualify as circumstantial to a liberal, but most of us (particularly those of us with government clearances) realize you aren't supposed to be walking around with classified documents. When you carry those to a soviet spy, it is both circumstatial and damned obvious to anyone interested in the truth.
So here I was, a non-liberal favorably reviewing a book that exposes a communist spy, and I am accused of "refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union."
I think Ann was refering, not to the reviewer, but to the liberal Seattle paper and the liberals that defended her since the evidence was just that she took classified documents to a soviet spy.
BTW - I know nothing about the case except what I read in this post, so I could be making a bunch of factual errors.
..Coulter Tells Leno She Wears Liberal Contempt as 'a Badge of Honor' June 15, 2006
Ditto's to that!
Why did Michael Chapman sue Ann Coulter?
Unlike Ann, Michael Chapman is not about publicity.
Ann took his info and made it like she was the one who wrote his stuff.
Don't take my word for it. You can read the book review here (you'll have to scroll down a bit).
Tell me whether or not you think Ann's portrayal is accurate. Tell me whether or not you think it is even possible to interpret it as "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..."
But what I cannot understand is why you would then act as though that means the two are equivalent to one another. That would only be justified if conservatism and leftism were, in you mind, roughly equivalent to to conservatism.
I don't see how. Lies and smears are equally wrong regardless of whether they are intended to push people to the right or to the left.
If you dislike Coulter's hyperbole, why not respond to a thread about her with a post devoid of hyperbole the exemplifies what you think she should?
I don't believe my post contained any hyperbole, but here goes anyway. She should tell the truth and make her case patiently, rationally and without invective. I know it doesn't sell as many books, but I think it is more effective in the long run.
And now for a training film to learn how to properly call someone a liar.
Yes -- the evidence in the court case.
The woman was there to hand over classified documents in her purse. That MAY qualify as circumstantial to a liberal, but most of us (particularly those of us with government clearances) realize you aren't supposed to be walking around with classified documents. When you carry those to a soviet spy, it is both circumstatial and damned obvious to anyone interested in the truth.
According to the article in question, Coplon had a right to the documents in her purse. And the reviewer agrees with you; the meeting was both damning and circumstantial.
I think Ann was refering, not to the reviewer, but to the liberal Seattle paper and the liberals that defended her since the evidence was just that she took classified documents to a soviet spy.
Then why quote this particular review? It clearly does not support the point she is trying to make.
BTW - I know nothing about the case except what I read in this post, so I could be making a bunch of factual errors.
Fair enough. If you care to read about the case, you can do so here. For the record, that's a link to a U.S. gov't website.
You can't be effective if you can't sell your books. Selling lots of books is a good indication that you are "being effective".
Nothing worse than a long boring tome in today's culture wars.
Oy, you're a mendacious wretch! I was on that thread; you came into the thread half-cocked and assumed he was "gang-piling" on an (abusive) poster. You patronizingly asked him not to ping you "this way again." So he took you off.
Tonite you're in here like a jilted lover quibbling with SH with your silly rhetorical suppositions "Does her rhetoric help? I do not think it does . . . it is lowbrow and it is not appreciated by the masses, who by the way, are voters. So do the math again on how turning off voters helps win elections?"
I don't know how to spell it out any clearer than this: NUMBER 1 NY TIMES BEST SELLER. You don't think it's "appreciated by the masses?" And you know this how? I suppose 50,000 people (so far) putting down cash to buy the thing indicates what?
All you are is some initials on a screen and you've figured out how to become a best-selling author. Your hauteur would be breathtaking if you weren't such a pathetic twit.
Your opinion of AC is obviously colored by your immature reaction to Sam Hill. Go ahead and flatter yourself with your banal locutions and leave the SH to his important work.
That depends on who is buying them. How many of Ann's books do you think are not being sold to the already convinced. I bet it's a relatively small number.
I think your approach is reasonable. I disagree with it, but you do make sense.
The angry Gore, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, etc over-the-top stuff has turned people off, not ON.
I just don't want us to go there. As I said in my very first post to this thread, there is a way to administer a direct hit without ever rolling around in the trash.
LOL. Funny post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
