Posted on 10/23/2002 9:23:37 AM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at atrentino.com ...
p. 29. AHC: 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. . . . . True, some people will have more money. But others lose the benefit of the government programs that the money had funded.
This guy has an interesting definition of "lie", and clearly didn't proofread this very well. Unless he's intentionally misleading his own readers, that is. The fact that others lose the benefit of the government programs is irrelevant to the point Ann made. Look at the precise point Ann was addressing:
"how exactly it would help anyone"
Anyone does not mean everyone. The author even conceded that "True, some people will have more money...." Thus, far from "lying", the exact point Ann made is one that even the author admits is true. Ann answered the question of how it would benefit anyone by pointing out that reducing taxes will put more money in some people's pockets. The fact that some other people will get less in government handouts doesn't change the truth of Ann's statement in the slightest.
And this is the statement that the author claims is the "most egregious lie in the whole chapter." Doesn't say much for the est of his research, does it?
By the way, footnotes are not always reserved for documenting points in the main text. Sometimes, you may put a tangential, though valuable, argument in a footnote in order not to disturb the flow of the main text. In other words, the mere fact that a footnote does not contain a formal citation to a particular source doesn't make it an improper footnote.
How does one write tall, blonde prose?
Its pretty powerful stuff, in typical Coulterese...little wonder RL could'nt handle it. This girl could give the Gipper a run for his verbal skills. I wonder if she could bring down the Democratic Voters Fraud Curtain... it would be worth a try. That would change things except of course in New Jersy where fraud is a requirement for office, and then theres West Virginia... or was that Louisiana....oh! well it getting to much for me..
Play nice now, children.
The tax rebate came out of the surplus, you know the extra money. Extra, as in it wasn't being used for anything at the time. I'm curious how surplus money, not in the general fund would have funded something?
Not being snotty to you Jarhead, but rather the quoted source!
Very well said. Preaching to the converted usually doesn't get you anywhere other than to alienate the people in the middle who otherwise may be persuadable.
She could make the exact same points, use the exact same facts, and simply state it in a less obnoxious manner. Humor is sometimes a great way to disarm an opponent, but she appears incapable of using that particular weapons. That's one thing that makes Mark Steyn so effective. He can be caustic as hell, but his humor makes it harder to demonize him.
Anyways, I love Ann Coulter because she is sharp, honest, great on the eyes, and because she is such an entertaining and insightful writer. Plus, she has a killer smile.
I could just look at Ann and read her stuff all day long, every day.
Regards,LH
(PS....waiting for some pix.)
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I read a post from you today from a now nuked thread where you called the original poster a moron for no other reason than you didn't like his post. Don't throw stones.
The fact that Ann Coulter is highly intelligent, articulate, and well informed automatically precludes her from being one of the lefties' lackeys. All of the personal attacks, lies, and half-truths they throw at her only resluts in further highlighting her sound, logical and well-documented arguments.
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.