Coulter responds to "lies" accusations

[Nie Trink Wasser]

I havent been around much lately to your disappointment.

I came across this and felt that it's important to read her response to the accusations of her "lies".

or you can just ignore it and keep squealing like hawgs.


Here are a few of the alleged "lies" that I have already responded to – and which were then dropped by the Coulter hysterics as they barreled ahead to the next inane charge. A fuller response will be published on my website.


Franken's very first charge against me is that I told a reporter from the Observer that I was "friendly" with Franken, when in fact, we are not "friendly."
Needless to say, I never claimed to be friendly with Al Franken. Inasmuch as I barely know Franken, a normal person might have looked at that and realized the reporter misunderstood me. But apparently Franken thinks he has a pretty cool name to drop – the oddest case of reverse name-dropping I've ever heard of.

I don't hear about this "lie" so much anymore.


Franken hysterically accuses me of "lying" for calling my endnotes "footnotes" in interviews on my book.
Yes, notes at the end of a book are technically "endnotes," not "footnotes." Franken will have to take his case up with the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the rest of the universe – all of which referred to my 780 endnotes as "FOOTNOTES." Also, God, for inventing the concept of "colloquial speech."

I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.


I incorrectly claimed Dale Earnhardt's death was not mentioned on the front page of the New York Times the day after his death.
In my three best-selling books – making the case for a president's impeachment, accusing liberals of systematic lying and propagandizing and detailing 50 years of treachery by the Democratic Party – this is the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce, corrected soon after publication. CONGRATULATIONS, LIBERALS!!!

The Columbia Journalism Review was crowing about this great victory over Ann Coulter a year ago. A search of "coulter" and "earnhardt" on Google turns up more than 1,000 hits. Now Franken dedicates another two pages in his book to it. I believe this triumph of theirs has been sufficiently revisited by now. At least I didn't miss the Ukrainian famine (cf., Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty).

I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10237

[Tricky]

There's no reason to lie about Ann Coulter when the truth works so well. Notice she only picks a few examples where she could either trivialize the "lie" or spin it to her advantage. She doesn't mention any of the howlers that she has been called on, like...
"The "religious right" is a nonexistent creation of liberal paranoia. "
or
"There was no conflict of interest when Fox News allowed Bush's cousin to call election night results. "

Want to see more of her lies?
They are many and well documented. (http://slannder.homestead.com/)

Apologies are due for the few times she was incorrectly tagged for lying. When she tells so many lies, finding a truth is like finding a needle in a haystack.

[MoeFaux]

Oooooo, I hate that wascally ****. :mad:

[zakur]

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/26/Floridian/Bestseller_trampled_u.shtml

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/coulter.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

[richardm]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Oooooo, I hate that wascally ****. :mad:

Which one? :D

[Upchurch]

I was at Border's the other day and read the first couple of chapters of Franken's book (they're a quick read), which was about Coulter.

The one I hadn't heard before is the fact that her current DC driver's license lists her birthday as being two years later than her previous driver's license (I don't remember which state). Coulter insists that her DC license is correct, but if it is, then she was registered to vote in her home state at the age of 16, which is a federal crime.

So, she's either falsified her DC license or she's committed a federal crime. Either way, she's a fraud.

Speaking of the footnote/endnote thing, Franken had a good deal about her footnote/endnotes in his book. More than she lets on in her way too brief rebuttal. She avoided lying in some cases by taking a quote way out of context in the text of her book only to marginally correct it in the endnotes.

[Cain]

I would like to think Coulter's elementary errors documented in _Lying Liars_ owe more to her incompetence as an author than outright dishonesty. I am mildly upset at Franken for suggesting Evan Thomas and Norman Thomas are completely unrelated. He should have known better.

In one of these Coulter threads somebody posted a link alleging plagiarism. You can't get more intellectually dishonest than stealing the words of another author. I'm curious why Franken didn't include those charges. He picks on relatively frivolous errors.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cain
I would like to think Coulter's elementary errors documented in _Lying Liars_ owe more to her incompetence as an author than outright dishonesty. I am mildly upset at Franken for suggesting Evan Thomas and Norman Thomas are completely unrelated. He should have known better.


That's not entirely fair; the suggestion was deliberate, to prove a point. The "endnote" (as Franken anally calls it) points out that Evan is Norman's grandson. It dovetails right into the idea that Coulter banks on the idea that nobody will bother to research her endnotes. (In fact, the book has two endnotes. One says "Evan Thomas is Norman Thomas' grandson. The one right below it says "see how hard it was to find?")

Like I said, it was intentional to prove a point. It showed that he could be misleading yet still telling the truth. I think it was actually rather clever.

[Tony]

Unless she is staring in a hardcore porn, im not interested in Coulter.

[Cain]

That's not entirely fair; the suggestion was deliberate, to prove a point. The "endnote" (as Franken anally calls it) points out that Evan is Norman's grandson. It dovetails right into the idea that Coulter banks on the idea that nobody will bother to research her endnotes. (In fact, the book has two endnotes. One says "Evan Thomas is Norman Thomas' grandson. The one right below it says "see how hard it was to find?")

Like I said, it was intentional to prove a point. It showed that he could be misleading yet still telling the truth. I think it was actually rather clever.

You're 100% right. I forgot completely about that endnote and it does prove his point rather well. In fact, that's hilarious -- Coulter accusing him of "intellectual dishonesty" for including relevant context in an obscure footnote.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
Unless she is staring in a hardcore porn, im not interested in Coulter. She's engaging in a sort of intellectual prostitution. Faking it and getting paid for it. Does that count?

;) :D

[HarryKeogh]

i find coulter as annoying, rude, fact-manipulating and pompous as al franken.

[Cain]

Al Franken is funny.

"annoying" -- He's not for everbody.

"rude" -- Oh, bah.

"fact-manipulating" -- Where? How? To Coulter's extent? Nonsense.

"pompous" -- that's self-consciously part of his public persona.

[Silicon]

Yes, one of the most damning things Franken points out is how Coulter will generalize in the middle of a sentence, compressing multiple attributions in a laundry list of name calling, to create the impression that The New York Times, for example said something inflammatory about Bush that was really said by, for instance, Al Sharpton. In this way, she claims that the New York Times shows a very clear bias. She "clears it up" in the end notes, if you look back there and find that the list of name-calling has multiple attributions.


It's like if I was to write the following:


The right wing media like Fox News and their apparatchiks have polarized the debate over Bustamante's candidacy. The anti-native-american rhetoric, led by Bill O'Reilley in his September 15, 1993 column entitled "What's Wrong with Bustamante?", has typified the right-wing screeching, saying "this election is run by dirty money", "Bustamante is bought and paid for", and "the only good indian is a dead indian". endnote3


Then way back in the endnotes, if you look through them, you'll see that O'Reilly only said the first 2 quotes, and General Custer said the last one! See, it's ALL anti-native american speech I'm talking about, not just O'Reilly! Pretty sneaky!


(PS, I made all this up, O'Reilly didn't write the first two either).

[Silicon]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
i find coulter as annoying, rude, fact-manipulating and pompous as al franken.

Read his stuff. He's actually quite self-effacing. Read the delightful chapter on how Barbara Bush dismisses him with a wave of her hand, and he completely doesn't "get" that she's serious. He thinks she's just this really dry wit, having a laugh on him. The entire chapter has Al protrayed as incredibly dense, failing miserably try-after-try to ingraciate himself to the former first lady, and oblivious to the fact that he's merely digging his grave deeper and deeper. It's a hoot, and Al looks like a complete dolt.

The book is full of that stuff.

Also, I've worked with the man. He doesn't have an ego. The "Me, Al Franken" character from his old SNL Weekend Update personna is the one you seem to have a problem with. That's not how he comes off in the book, or in real life.

[Silicon]

You know, all of the Right Wing counter-attacks on Al Franken's number 1 bestselling book remind me of something.

Remember the old Eddie Murphy standup routine where he mimicks a stiff white guy trying to tell Eddie Murphy's jokes the day after the concert?


That's what NTW's posts and the other ones here are like. They filter out all the jokes, and quote the book as if it didn't have any! Then they counter-attack it as if the jokes were the serious attacks.

It's a JOKE... but he's kidding on the square.


Folks, either read the book or don't. Don't take NTW's lame-ass paraphrasing of the book and make a judgement on that. Just because NTW doesn't have a sense of humor doesn't mean Al Franken doesn't.


I notice that Coulter doesn't respond to the most serious attacks, merely the frivolous ones. The most serious being the fact that she says that "liberals hate America". In fact, that's her entire position.

Al Franken does quite a number on that, in mutiple chapters spinning how Democratic war heroes are America haters, and Republican draft-dodgers are patriots.

He also has a great true chapter where he and fellow Democrat John Glenn entertain our troops overseas as part of the USO, as Al has done for years. Throughout the chapter he mocks Coulter's position that he and Glenn are anti-American.

[Ed]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Oooooo, I hate that wascally ****. :mad:

Yeah, but see what the guys say

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26963

[Ladewig]

"[Franklin should take the case up with] God, for inventing the concept of 'colloquial speech.'"

I think that one line is a perfect example of why I cannot respect her. She says something crazy and punctuates it incorrectly at the same time. There should not be quotes within that sentence.



Gen 1:16-17 The Main Man said, "You guys can go ahead and chow down on the fruit of any of these trees, but don't munch on the fruit of that tree, elsewise you'll be be nothing but worm food."

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Ed


Yeah, but see what the guys say

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26963

I'll tell you what I think:
I would'nt *** her ***** unless there was a considerable amount of money invovled. Not only is she not attractive, she's also a *****. I'll bet she thinks ******* **** is degrading to women, and that makes me want to punch her in the face.
The only reason this women gets so much play is because she's the least unattractive of the political voices. But look at her. Celine Dion is more attractive, and think of all the **** we give her about her looks.
It's all because of her long blond hair. Cut that off and everyone hates her.
If you want to get riled up about someones political views, just listen to me. I'm far more attractive, and I'm *** ** *** ****.

[Tony]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


I'll tell you what I think:
I would'nt *** her ***** unless there was a considerable amount of money invovled. Not only is she not attractive, she's also a *****. I'll bet she thinks ******* **** is degrading to women, and that makes me want to punch her in the face.
The only reason this women gets so much play is because she's the least unattractive of the political voices. But look at her. Celine Dion is more attractive, and think of all the **** we give her about her looks.
It's all because of her long blond hair. Cut that off and everyone hates her.
If you want to get riled up about someones political views, just listen to me. I'm far more attractive, and I'm *** ** *** ****.


I'd be interested to see the uncensored version of this post!! :D

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


I'll tell you what I think:
I would'nt *** her ***** unless there was a considerable amount of money invovled. Not only is she not attractive, she's also a *****. I'll bet she thinks ******* **** is degrading to women, and that makes me want to punch her in the face.
The only reason this women gets so much play is because she's the least unattractive of the political voices. But look at her. Celine Dion is more attractive, and think of all the **** we give her about her looks.
It's all because of her long blond hair. Cut that off and everyone hates her.
If you want to get riled up about someones political views, just listen to me. I'm far more attractive, and I'm *** ** *** ****.

wow! did you write this post while on lunch break at truck driving school?

though i am in agreement that some celebs are ogled because theyre celebs and not due to their level of hotness. i have a friend who's into pete sampras. i mean, really.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


wow! did you write this post while on lunch break at truck driving school?

though i am in agreement that some celebs are ogled because theyre celebs and not due to their level of hotness. i have a friend who's into pete sampras. i mean, really.

It wasn't the words, really, it was the context. I could put all but one of those words in a different sentance and publish it in a childrens book.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony
Unless she is staring in a hardcore porn, im not interested in Coulter.

Why would you want to see someone staring in a porn flick? And what would she be staring at?


"Ann Coutler: Voyeur!"

No, it isn't doing it for me. I knew you were weird, but god-damn!