Appreciating Ann Coulter

The Conning Tower ^ | 10/23/02 | Trentino

[Davis]

Let's start with what everyone knows about Ann Coulter. She is tall, blond, pretty, vigorous, lithe, and lissome. Each of these adjectives applies equally well to her prose.

She is also wicked-smart and diligent, too. Look upon her works and you discover that Ann Coulter is not a dealer in slander. but rather relies on a barrage of facts or the single dispositive fact.

For an instance of the mighty barrage, see how she reduces the windbag senator from West Virginia to a pile of rubble simply by listing the institutes and erections named for himself and dotting the landscape in the style of a tin pot dictator of some mosquito-infested banana republic...more

[JennysCool]

With a few exceptions, which I explain carefully, I have checked or attempted to check all of the footnoted citations in Chapter 2 of Slander. Originally, I thought I would try to plow through the whole book, but I changed my mind.

Ahh, that ol' Liberal dedication at work again! Tripe.

[skeeter]

Watching Ann on news talk shows is more fun now than ever. Her opponents, forearmed with an awareness of her reputation for ruthlessness, are usually hyperventilating before the debate even begins. They almost always immediately resort to personal attacks. Her response, whatever form it may take, is usually priceless.

[norraad]

-even if, I'd still like her, she makes me laugh & feel I'm not so alone in my feelings & thoughts.

[Naspino]

I read Slander. Its a wonderful book -- and only a liberal stung by the truth would not like it.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Ahh, that ol' Liberal dedication at work again! Tripe.

Here's some more.

Actually, I haven't even read most of the book. Part of Chapter 1 and all of Chapter 2. I browsed here and there when wrestling with the dilemma of whether to buy the book. Why bother to read more?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe so you could comment intelligently about the book instead of just repeating the usual democRAT talking points?

[LaraCroft]

"Unless, of course, you think I've fact-checked the entire book and chosen the worst chapter for this site. Actually, I haven't even read most of the book. Part of Chapter 1 and all of Chapter 2. I browsed here and there when wrestling with the dilemma of whether to buy the book. Why bother to read more?
I don't intend to do any more research on Slander. I will, however, update links to Slander sites or commentary as they come to my attention..."Lara says: Yes... definitely an expert.. he doesn't even have to read the book to know its not right. And he amply proves another of her points... instead of debating ideas, he attacks HER.

What a loser. Not the doctor.. the academia is an intellectual desert, but the poor people who leap to their side. Sublinal kid, did YOU even read either her book or the article, and if so, aren't you embarrassed to post his views, when he clearly admits he read one and a half chapters of the book?

[SwinneySwitch]

Ann didn't list The Robert C. Byrd Bakers Hall of Fame!

[tm22721]

Well somebody has to say it.

Pictures, please.

BUMP

[KAUAIBOUND]

Hey bozo, the "source" you cited is ludicrous in its nit-picking. For example, he drones on about the average donation to the Republican party being stated as $50 in Coulter's book, but recent statistics show that this has crept up to $55. Big ### deal! Get lost, loser.

[UCANSEE2]

Uhhhhhhhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,wait a minute. Wrong skinny bird.

[onedoug]

Not even a very good try, again limited to poorly disguised personally attacks, thereby demonstrating Ann's points yet again.

[UCANSEE2]

One out of three pictures worked.

[big gray tabby]

I like the way this dipstick spent all that time reading and dissecting Chapter Two and meanwhile we were busy giving the country to our oil buddies and throwing liberals in jail for dissent. You really couldn't script it any better!

Oh, and while you were at Bowling For Columbine, we were out pushing codgers off cliffs. What a hoot that was!

[UCANSEE2]

Yep. Anyone else got pics?

[alnick]

Ooh, this is my favorite part of the site you linked to:

"p. 29. AHC: "[T]he leading Democrat[ic] argument against Bush's 2001 tax cut was to demand to know how exactly it would help anyone. . . . To state the manifestly obvious: People would have more money. That's an improvement right there. . . . More money will give people more money. Isn't that the goal? What am I missing?" No citation provided. This is, IMHO, the most egregious lie in the whole chapter. The response is obvious. True, some people will have more money. But others lose the benefit of the government programs that the money had funded. Therefore, the debate was over which use of the money was better – spent privately, or publicly? It is absolutely inconceivable that AHC does not know this. For her to pretend that she or anyone else ever thought that the tax cut would be a totally free lunch, putting dollars in peoples' pockets with no sacrifice anywhere, goes beyond disingenuous."

That is hysterical. I suppose that we should all sacrifice our entire paychecks to the government so that the funds can be used publicly rather than privately. Bwahahahaha

[mtbrandon49]

Half the links to the "facts" on that page don't even lead to anything remotely close to what they claim.