Posted on 06/17/2006 8:42:22 AM PDT by marc costanzo
The left-leaning Newsweek magazine lied about what she wrote in her book, an indignant Ann Coulter said during an appearance on Thursday night's Hannity & Colmes show on Fox News Channel.
"I'm sitting in a Fox studio in L.A.," Coulter said. "I don't know why there's a copy of Newsweek here rather than Human Events. Here is Newsweek describing Ann Coulter as saying '9/11 widows enjoyed their [husbands'] deaths.' That is simply a lie . . . That is a lie. If you can't deal with the facts and you refuse to say what the argument is, I think that's a total lack of confidence in your position and it certainly shows a complete lack of understanding [that] Americans can find out the truth these days - that it's not the mainstream media monopoly it was 10 years ago."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Oh. So she actually INTENDED for "enjoy" to mean one thing, but knew it would be interpreted to mean something else?
So, you admit she was being disingenuous. You should have said so in the first place.
You are supposed to take the comment in context and understand the larger point she was making.
Please, enlighten us as to what in this book is not factual.
I'm reading it right now and I'll be happy to highlight the inaccuracies according to Balrog666.
Thanks in advance. GG
Good heavens! So you are slicing the argument even thinner.
This makes me want a pretzel, with lots of mustard.
"Good heavens! So you are slicing the argument even thinner."
Enjoy your pretzel. You can assume what you want, but the language speaks for itself. Ann is very good with language. She made no mistake.
One refers to being happy about their husbands dying (which she claims she was not saying)
and the other refers to them standing on the caskets of their husbands campaigning for the Democrats and milking the government(us taxpayers) out of MUCH more money than was originally offered.
Not because the original amount wasn't enough for mostpeople, these women decided they needed more than everyone else.
And how could any amount replace a husband, so why should the amount be questioned? Seems the money was more important, important enough for them to jump into the limelight and repeat propaganda they were given by the DNC.
"Wrong, as with many english words, enjoy does have various meanings. I'm guessing it's unlikely that you got an 800 on your verbal SAT test."
You could'a just explained.
LOL
IIRC the original amount was around 400k.
These women wanted 2Million each.
Five times the original amount.
Tanks, I do my best.
No response necessary, I just thought you had a really good summation and linked to it.
Know what I mean? ;-)
Get the picture?
Recognize yourself in any of this?
Do I need to go on?
Zon: The Playboy comment was obviously meant as a means to extricate himself from the hole he (she?) had dug.
Below is when ahayes engaged Zon in discussion on this thread.
ahayes: What, you weren't aware that Ann Coulter said that? 146 to 144ahayes: Here you go:
"Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy." -- Ann Coulter, Godless
Having read your tagline, I'll await an apology. 151 to 144
Zon: I know exactly what Ann wrote. In your 146 post you jumped to the wrong assumption that I didn't know what Ann wrote. Now you've compounded your error.
I'm waiting for you to admit your error of jumping to the wrong conclusion and then compounding your error. I need no apology from you. Nor do I want an apology from you because it would be meaningless.
My tag line holds it's ground. Always. You did it to yourself. 158 to 151
Below is where ahayes misdirects the discussion. He knows full well that he made a wrong assumption in post 146 and compounded his error in his post 151. Nor does he acknowledge his error and asking me for an apology despite, it is he -- by his own standards (as well as my tagline) -- that owes me an apology.
ahayes: If you knew that she made the Playboy comment, then I really have no clue what your initial post meant, but I can't say I'm concerned with the opinion of someone so complacent about vulgarity. 161 to 158
Below I return the discussion back on track to The Point that ahayes made.
Zon: I pointed out your wrong assumption which you next compounded that error. Then I asked you to correct your error. I take note that you chose to ignore acknowledging your error, much less make any attempt to correct it. You just carry on as if nothing happened.Yo dude, your credibility just took a considerable hit. It didn't have to be that way. You chose it that way. But hey, that's your problem -- not mine. Deal with it. Or don't. It doesn't matter to me -- it's your loss, not mine.
There's no escape. See tag line.182 to 161
ahayes: Yo, dude, until you explain your original post, I can't even figure out what my error was, dude!
That is so disingenuous of you. Your146 post your assumption that I didn't know what AC wrote was in error. I pointed that error out to you in my 158 post. And you compounded that error in your 151 by repeating your erroneous assumption and then asked for my apology. Commenting that you had read my tagline.
You claim you don't understand my original post (144) yet earlier in your 151 post to it you ask for my apology. How is it that you ask for an apology when you don't understand the post? Asking for an apology because you read my tagline. So far you have been anything but honest on this matter.
Here... allow me take the shovel away from you and toss you a rope: see tagline.
He has been for most of the day.
I thought you were kidding. . . You were kidding weren't you?
So she actually INTENDED for "enjoy" to mean one thing, but knew it would be interpreted to mean something else?
She knows, as do I and most people, that words can be taken out of context and applied the wrong definition. Without context there is ambiguity. With context, the people that attribute the wrong definition out themselves -- expose themselves.
AC may have known that a sentence and even single word would be taken out of context. It's happened in the past so why would it not happen again. Professional writers know that full well. The best writers use that to their advantage. AC certainly did. She wasn't being disingenuous, IMO. She just knows the audience and some people's penchant to spin, deceive and lie. And she used that to her advantage. It's very powerful knowledge to have and especially utilize.
You're right, thanks. I just spent the last twenty minutes dealing with their little present.
Please, enlighten us as to what in this book is not factual.The books is so bad that I imagine listing the factual portions would be a lot easier. If you want specific errors, freepmail Ichneumon and ask to be pinged when he posts his review of the chapters about evolution. I can also recommend Right Wing Professor's blog.
What spyware program do you use that notifies when unwanted spy-code or cookie is about to be put on your computer. The spyware programs I use (Adaware and Spybot) only find them when I run the application to clean out whatever spyware the computer picked up.
The meaning could be taken either way. But I will give her the benefit of the doubt.
Similarly, the President didn't call the Minutemen vigilantes.
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.