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 ...
Well, why should we expect otherwise since the whole of the dimbulbs' philosophy is centered squarely upon the concept of victimhood? They never advance beyond being a victim. Regardless of the outcome, the dims want the persons involved to never rise above their circumstances and remain unable to move on. Take this very thread topic. The dims don't want the NJ4 to ever be anything other than grieving widows. And they use that to discredit Coulter's book. RATs are disgusting...
Hey, old FRiend. Nice to hear from you.
To us non-scientists, "theory" just means "idea that hasn't been proven yet".
The origins of life are just too much for my little brain to handle. I'll wait until I'm dead, and hope and pray I've lived a good enough life to find out the answers!!!
But I do wish those who are exploring it well.
What rock did you crawl out from under?
why are you posting a blog that openly bash's Freerepublic?What blog, and what bashing are you refering to?
YOU SAY NOTHING !
You talk a lot and say naught !
Coulter defenders, Coulter detractors ~ blah blah blah
Why are you here at all - - - don't like it, don't come here !
Beyond that, many of Ann's conclusions are subjective !
You can say her presentation of her conclusions are hurtful !
The Truth will hurt, so goes the ancient adage . .
A Writer can hammer readers with a infinite avalanche of minutia, in so doing, bore the reader .
(Ever try reading UTNE ?)
I have found most of Ann's statements to be true, factual, and above all, detailed !
Now if you want to argue how many undotted i's and uncrossed t's, we could go all day ~ ~
But you two liberal trolls never apply those same standards to Al Frankin, Jon Stewart, nor Bill Maher .
What gives with you Lefties ? You give these MEN a free pass, simply because you like what they say .
You are typical of the New York Popular Media and the Eggheads of Academe !
Go work for Air America, SNL, Salon.com, or The Daily Show !
>>She is so mean that we as conservatives think that she does not do the conservative message a service by speaking about them. Since she is a net-negative, better to fight all of those who support her, regardless of the bigger points she is making.
In my opinion, all of these arguments are simply ways to stop discussing anything else she is saying. Do those of you who don't like Ann agree or disagree with here larger points? Many of her points are not being made by many other people. The Jersey girls are not the only examples of the main point of that paragraph. Look at Murtha for instance. If you respond and disagree with Ann, please answer whether you think it's OK to criticize them or not.
<<
Your statements seems contradictory ...
Thank you! :-)
It's good to see you posting as well.
So download last week's copy of NewsWeek .
>>Every ABC radio news report i heard said Ann slandered 911 widows. They never mentioned the Jersey Hags, just a blanket use of widows.<<
Well, that is to be expected !
ABC is Ted Koppel and the late Peter Jennings territory .
>>It's amazing how many DU trolls these Ann Coulter threads bring out.<<
YES, I HAVE NOTICED !
No it doesn't seem that way. The Minutemen patrol wasn't even on the border yet. And more to the point the President didn't even make an accusation.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America. I'm for enforcing law in a rational way. That's why you got a Border Patrol, and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border.
There's a difference between a specifically directed accusation of vigilantism and a general denouncement of potential vigilantism.
I wasn't the one who made the accusation. Newsmax did, or rather Coulter did. It's upon them as an unbiased 'news source' to provide both aspects of the argument if they're expected to be taken seriously. Wait a minute, we're talking about Newsmax and Ann Coulter. They've never done it before, why would they start now? Spin to the 'right' is acceptable right?
Bush didn't answer the questi0n.
Since the discussi0n was "live", it d0es say s0mething that W ch0se t0 use the l0aded w0rd "vigilante" in resp0nse. It's clear that by n0t directly answering the questi0n, he's 0ff the h00k by direct qu0tati0n. His th0ughts c0me clearly thr0ugh th0ugh.
It's very likely that W believes in his heart that the MM ARE vigilantes. By his acti0ns, we can c0nclude that W d0esn't really believe that this is a nati0n 0f laws wrt illegal immigrati0n.
0ne is left t0 draw 0nes 0wn c0nclusi0ns, but I think that 6 years 0f inacti0n speaks v0lumes. The vigilante thing is just icing 0n the cake.
So typical of NewsTweak. They haven't written the truth in years.
You are right, Bush didn't answer the question.
Given that there were no arrests up to that point and given that the President couldn't guarantee that there would be no future vigilante actions, as chief law enforcement officer it would be inappropriate for Bush to answer the question in the following two ways;
(2)Anybody who is at the border now and anybody (including) the Minutemen who will soon be at the border are not vigilantes and will not be vigilantes when they get to the border.
Regarding vigilantism at the border, LE has one task. Arrest and prosecute anybody who has committed a vigilante act.
Since there hadn't been any arrests and since the President can't predict the future, instead of answering the setup question, the President went on to do his job and say what he wanted to see at the border and what he didn't want to see at the border.
BTW, is your keyboard br0ken?
Your post for the blog “Right Wing Professor” the guy is blithering idiot attacking Freerepbublic.
LE DOES have other responsibilities at and around the border. They have the responsibility to protect the citizens from trespass by illegals. Any vigilante actions in the past (not necessarily associated with the border and definitely not the KKK) have been associated with a lack of LE presence/enforcement.
W wouldn't even have to be concerned with any vigilante action if he had been doing his job of enforcing existing laws regarding illegal border crossers. All of this really does come down to W's opinion of the existing laws and his responsibilities to enforce same.
Not answering a legitimate question is weaseling. Using the word vigilante is inflamatory.
Sorry, the President didn't accuse anybody of being a "vigilante".
A President stating what he does want ot see and what he doesn't want to see at the border using the word"vigilante" (oh the horrors) is appropriate.
We disagree.
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.