Ann Coulter Poll

[Felix_Nietzsche]

"she does not lie."
She's a pathological liar. Here are two examples from her book Slander:
************************************************** ********
OK, bring them on.


“New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that [Attorney General] Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists.”
Reality: In the column Coulter cited, there is absolutely no evidence that Rich even remotely suggested that Ashcroft curtail efforts against Islamic terrorists. There exists not one post-9/11 Times column by Rich in which Rich made any such demands of Ashcroft.
************************************************** ******
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/719196/posts
DONAHUE: You’ve grievously been unfair to some folks in here. You have “New York Times” columnist Frank Rich demanding Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists?
COULTER: Yes.
DONAHUE: He said no such thing. Frank Rich is out there saying go get them.
COULTER: Yes, he did. He had a column on it.
DONAHUE: No, he didn’t.
COULTER: I cite the column and I invite the viewers to look it up. It is quoted. It is footnoted. He had an entire column denouncing John Ashcroft for not meeting with the representatives.
DONAHUE: That’s not monkeying around. That’s not saying he should stop monkeying around.
COULTER: Oh, yes, it-look, he asked if it was one or the other.
DONAHUE: Let’s, for the sake of this argument-Rich was saying...
COULTER: No, not for the sake of this argument.
DONAHUE: Rich was saying if anybody knows about terrorism, it’s people who operate abortion clinics. And they have names. They know things. And they wanted to talk to Ashcroft so they could help him with this war on terror.
Wouldn’t see them. Wouldn’t even talk to them. That was the point...
COULTER: OK, can I respond now?
DONAHUE: Sure.
COULTER: And, moreover, he quoted the great expertise of these planned parenthood experts. Because the true terrorists are the opponents to slaughtering children in the womb. That’s what we have to worry about in this country. He quoted them and what their advice would be, don’t offer terrorists money.
Well, the precise quote, you know, terrorists they were looking for was, caught in response to a reward of money. That’s a little embarrassing, don’t you think? Listen to these people.
Well, the advice they were giving, that he quoted in his column, turned out to be 180 degrees wrong. And that was the point of this column. Concentrate on people going after abortion clinics.
DONAHUE: You accuse him of suggesting that Ashcroft and the rest should stop...
COULTER: He was not pursuing the war on terrorism seriously because he would not meet with Planned Parenthood.
DONAHUE: That isn’t what you said.
COULTER: Of course it is.


“Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism (‘declare war at the first at the first decent opportunity’!) and instead concentrate on ‘home-grown extremists.’”
Reality: In the column Coulter cited, Ackerman does not advocate concentrating on domestic terrorists (as opposed to foreign-born terrorists, who are the focus of the column). In fact, Ackerman only mentions “home-grown extremists” in passing (“And I do not deny that other attacks may well occur — perhaps committed by home-grown extremists.”)
************************************************** ********
Ann tells her detractors everyone of her quotes are foot noted and she challenges readers to check themselves.


"Tthe Democratic Party, as an entity, has become functionally treasonable."
************************************************** **
An opinion.
Many Democratic leaders have been giving many hurtful propaganda like quotes to Al Qaeda. To accuse certain democrats of treason is not unreasonable. Jim "Bagdad" McDermott has crossed the line several times. Dick Durbin aplogized in tears for comparing US troops to Nazis. Al Qaeda has taken these Democratic quotes and used them as recruiting tools.


"Bill Clinton was a very good rapist."
************************************************** *******
An opinion.
Is it not true that Bill Clinton is an accused rapist? He was never indicted but his accuser stands by her story. i have seen interviews of Anita Broderick's and her story is very compelling.


"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
************************************************** **
Satire.


On Iran: "I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."
************************************************** **
Satire.


"Liberals hate America, . . . they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”
**************************************************
An opinion. Once on network news, they showed anti-war protesters trying to stop US military supply ships from leaving port to deliver supplies to US troops in Iraq. Even though their attempts were futile, these people could be charged with treason. If I were president, I would throw these people in jail.
Comparing US troops to Nazis while our troops are fighting insurgents in Iraq is a major propaganda tool for the Al Qaeda. John "Tokyo Rose" Murtha could be called a traitor for his remarks calling US troops cold-blooded-murders. These marines are entitled to a defense and the right to cross-examine any witnesses. Murtha's remarks are extremely hurtful to troop morale. Also Murtha's remarks have been used by Al Qaeda recruiters to recruit more jihadists. A patriotic man would shut up and wait until AFTER a trial. If these men are found not guilty, then Murtha has helped Al Qaeda recruit new members with his false remarks. If these men are found guilty, then he could comment that this behavior is not acceptable for US troops and will be punished.

Trying to deny US troops supplies is sign of hatred, don't you think?

[BillUCF]

Ann Coulter is hot. Especially her photo of firing the handgun.

[andyfox]

Only the first two citations were examples of her lying. Her footnotes show that she lied. They also show that she doesn't consider herself a satirist, but rather a political commentator.

The quotes are just examples of her recklessness. That you think it not unreasonable to accuse the Democrats of treason is why you don't see her as reckless.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Only the first two citations were examples of her lying. Her footnotes show that she lied.
************************************************** ********
I have note seen her footnotes or the articles in question.
Nor has anyone on this forum posted these. Therefore I see no proof. I do see proof of anti-Coulter bias where opinions are called lies and minor errors are called lies.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...09/168702.html
E.g."I claim Evan Thomas' father was the Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas."
It was his GRANDfather not his father yet thousands of websites cite this as proof of her lies. Ann has since corrected this mistake. Labeling these minor glitches as lies shows the desperate tactics that Ann's detractors are willing to sink to.


They also show that she doesn't consider herself a satirist, but rather a political commentator.
************************************************** *
Being satirist and a political commentator are not mutually exclusive.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
People are getting tired of these tactics and Ann Coulter has exposed these shameless tactics with BRUTAL honesty. And I love her for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wondered who the target audience was. Now I know.

[ QUOTE ]
The Dems need to:
1. Stop these shallow tactics.
2. Be honest with the American people on their views.
3. Try to persuade the American people using sound arguments and logic.
4. Use democratic leaders like Howard Dean to convey their message.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm amused at how conservatives/republicans love to tell dems what they need to do. I hear or read something like this every single day now.

Okay, my turn. The repubs need to: clean up their act.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Criticize their politics is you disagree with them. Show where their facts are wrong, if they are. Call them stupid. [Just not on this forum .] But what evidence does she have and what right does she have to say that they're enjoying the deaths of their husbands?

[/ QUOTE ]I made no claim to the veracity or her statement and I have no idea as to the context in which is was said.

I simply said that on the face of it there is nothing inherently wrong with her statement - ie, you cannot read the statement in a vacuum and say that she said anything improper.

[andyfox]

Enjoyed the debate with you. While we touched on a lot of points, my main point is that Coulter's contention that the women she calls "witches" are enjoying their loved ones' deaths was an exceedingly insensitive, ugly, and untruthful remark for which she ought to apologize. She also asks: "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . . "

I have no problem with her criticizing their political statements nor with saying that the fact that they had relatives who were victims on 9/11 should not give them a free pass.

It's incredible to me that anyone could defend her comment. It would be like someone defending the remark that compared out soldiers to Nazis: it's simply indefensible. There's plenty of evidence to show, with her comments about the 4 women simply the most recent piece, that Ms. Coulter is a thoroughly disgusting human being.

Feel free to have the last word, I'm bowing out here.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Friedman been an unabashed supporter of ... the Iraq War ?

[/ QUOTE ] Correct me if I'm wrong but he never wanted to the USA to invade Iraq. link link

[/ QUOTE ] Well, correct me if I'm wrong but Friedman manages to sneka support for th wear under the guise of criticising it. Here he is, offering not just one reason for invading Iraq (the official stated reason, hunting for WMDs) , but four! From your first link:

[ QUOTE ]
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason. [etcetera]

[/ QUOTE ]

Then here is Friedman, from your second link, asking himself a rhetorical question which shows his feelings about Iraq:

[ QUOTE ]
"Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics."

[/ QUOTE ]What a devastating critic of the war that guy must be! The White House is surely sweating bullets with every Friedman column.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Al Franken told me PERSONALLY that Cyrus is a HUGE fan of "Carrot Top".

[/ QUOTE ]Drollery is one of the ways to avoid debating a losing proposition. I mean, you are serious about Ann Coulter not being a serial liar, are you? Now, that's funny.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She is a certified serial liar. In fact, I do not think she is capable of discussing something or writing a text without resorting to lies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Care to cite any REAL examples? Please don't waste my time with OPINIONS.

[/ QUOTE ] I guess Ann Coulter discussing Iraq on television and insulting Canadians for not backing the U.S. in that, was her opinion and not a fact. I mean, she went on to compare the situation in Vietnam when ...Canada sent troops to "fight alongside" the United States which they did not in Iraq -- an out and out lie, but I guess that was still her opinion, right?

I guess the lies in her unintentionally aplty titled book "Slander", are opinions and not facts. Like, when on p.7 she claims that Republican Jim Jeffords (who is smeared for closet liberalism) "supported Clinton's tax hike, and opposed the younger Bush's tax cut." Jeffords in fact voted against Clinton's 1993 budget, which included the tax hike, and for George W. Bush's tax cut. Oops, another opinion, I guess.

I guess that when she writes on p.199 of the same book, trying to accuse the NY Times of obsessing with civil rights, that "Between 1995 and 2001, the New York Times ran more than one hundred articles on "Selma" alone", Ann Coulter is offering an opinion and not a fact, because a simple Lexis search turns up only 16 NYT articles which were centrally concerned with historic happenings at Selma from the civil rights era. Another 54 articles contain brief mentions of Selma and civil rights but are on different topics.

Here is Coulter appearing on Hardball, guest-hosted by Mike Barnicle: "I will guess that the judges who said the Pledge of Allegiance violates the constitution were appointed by Democrats and not Republicans." Ann Coulter's "guess" was wrong. Only one of the two judges was appointed by a Democrat -- Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee. The other was Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who was appointed by Richard Nixon. But that's not a fact, it's a guess, right?

Here is the Columbia Journalism Review on Coulter's accuracy with her facts: "What about the dozens of ... allegations by Coulter's ideological foes? CJR checked out a sample of 40 alleged errors — some backed by footnotes and others not — and found that 19 were either accurate or could generously be considered fair comment and criticism. (Though some of the latter were hyperbolic or oversimplified ... — "Liberals have been wrong about everything in the last half-century," for example.) If a number of those 19 would have raised the eyebrows of any good fact-checker, the remaining 21 would not pass without major debate." But surely that's Columbia School's opinion and not a fact, right? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]



[ QUOTE ]
She mistakenly wrote father and he was really his GRANDfather. Ann has correct this error in later editions of her book. Since he was related via his GRANDfather will you now apologize for calling Ann Coulter "under-handed"?

[/ QUOTE ]Yep, I must apologize - for being too soft on Ann Coulter, the serial liar. I guess I was being a gentleman to her, like Franken has been.

Coulter stated that the father of the Newsweek Washington bureau chief was a socialist candidate - a fact that (in her world) must speak volumes about the political convictions -and credibility- of the bureau chief. It's the old totalitarian worldview at work: When a man is guilty of a crime (and being a socialist is a crime, in Ann Coulter's book) then all his family are criminals. Off to the Gulag they are marched!

In Coulter's (perverted) worldview, the father is "closer" to the "crime" (i.e. infesting the epigones with "socialist ideas") than a grandfather. Let's face it, stating that someone's grandfather or great-great-grandfather is a criminal doesn't carry the same punch as someone's father.

You want "not opinions but facts"? Well, my opinion is that she was trying to sneak a fast one, was caught and had to correct herself in "later editions".

...What a prize idiot Coulter is! How fitting she is for today's neo-conservative "movement". A literate, factual, witty conservative commentator would have been an aberration. I, for one, am grateful for Ann Coulter.

[CharlieDontSurf]

I'm still waiting for the day I turn on the news and see a report that Coulter was brutally assaulted, raped, or killed. The fact that she is decent looking, a woman, and inspires severe hate leads me to believe she doesn't have long in this world.