[JTN]

Your citation contains no Coulter lies.

Really? Taking two words by a conservative writer from a favorable review of a book that exposes a communist spy out of context in order to portray them as "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..." doesn't qualify as a lie in your world?

Just curious. What would?

[Sam Hill]

You need to clean you bong water.

You accused of of lying.

What she posted was factually true.

You are the liar.

[Sam Hill]

Sorry, multi-talking.

Should have read:

You need to clean your bong water.

You accused Coulter of lying.

What she posted was factually true.

You are the liar.

[labette]

I'm so impressed, I may vote for Hillary, McVain, Gore, etc, etc.

[ChessExpert]

Taking two words by a conservative writer from a favorable review of a book that exposes a communist spy out of context in order to portray them as "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..." doesn't qualify as a lie in your world?

Maybe this author is conservative, or maybe not. But let’s get to the claim "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..." I’ve heard liberals who vote Democrat deny that the Ethel & Julius Rosenberg were communist. I’ve not only read of references to “Uncle Joe” Stalin, I’ve heard it sincerely said. There is plenty more. Are there liberals who refuse to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union? Probably so.

The Humberto article is good. Your “personal favorite” “Coulter lie” is wearisome and not very convincing.