[Ed] CNN Hosts The Battle Of The Idiots..

dudalb · 30th July 2009, 10:56 AM

CNN is billing it as "Left versus Right..no holds barred" on Larry King tonight.

Ann Coulter versus Al Sharpton.

We have reaches the bottom folks. I can't see how "political debate" gets any worse then this. It is the ulitmate "Whoever Wins,We Lose" situation.

Biscuit · 30th July 2009, 11:23 AM

Those two colliding could open an a worm hole bigger than anything the LHC could manage! The planet is not safe! I will be in my bomb shelter if anyone needs me.

Cicero · 30th July 2009, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

CNN is billing it as "Left versus Right..no holds barred" on Larry King tonight.

Ann Coulter versus Al Sharpton.

We have reaches the bottom folks. I can't see how "political debate" gets any worse then this. It is the ulitmate "Whoever Wins,We Lose" situation.

Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate?

Denver · 30th July 2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate?

I guess it would depend on whether I am in the mood for substance, or entertainment.

Entertainment might include Glen Beck vs Jon Stewart, or Sarah Palin vs just about anybody.

For substance? Tricky.

alfaniner · 30th July 2009, 11:37 AM

I'd still like to see a decent Skeptic vs "Psychic" episode.

Cicero · 30th July 2009, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Denver

I guess it would depend on whether I am in the mood for substance, or entertainment.

Entertainment might include Glen Beck vs Jon Stewart, or Sarah Palin vs just about anybody.

For substance? Tricky.

Sharpton and A.C. has the same entertainment quotient as Beck and Stewart.

You mean it would be "tricky" to find two representatives that could impart substantive information?

Cleon · 30th July 2009, 11:47 AM

Larry King, Ann Coulter, and Al Sharpton.

Wow.

If only we could take harness the power of stupid, this show could provide our planet with clean energy for decades to come.

Denver · 30th July 2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Sharpton and A.C. has the same entertainment quotient as Beck and Stewart.

You mean it would be "tricky" to find two representatives that could impart substantive information?

Two who watching would make me feel I've seen a substantive debate: so it would involve individuals who were intelligent, honest, foresighted, in touch with real issues, informed with real facts (not spin or talking points), and capable of a civil but intense debate with each other (rather than the camera).

Cicero · 30th July 2009, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Denver

Two who watching would make me feel I've seen a substantive debate: so it would involve individuals who were intelligent, honest, foresighted, in touch with real issues, informed with real facts (not spin or talking points), and capable of a civil but intense debate with each other (rather than the camera).

Come on. Not even W.F. Buckley Jr. and Vidal Gore could meet such unrealistic standards.

dudalb · 30th July 2009, 11:57 AM

Let's face it, most poltical debates on TV amount to invititng two ideologues to shout at each other rather then actually discuss the issues beyong the same tired old talking points.
But Tonigh's Larry King carries it to extremes.
One thing is for sure:It has been a long time until we see two liars like Coulter and Sharpton together again. Both have no compunction about going beyond the usual half truths, distortions, and cherry picking into telling out and out lies that even most political "spokesmen" would hesitate to make.
I am going to tape this but it might take a while for me to work up the courage, or get drunk enough, to actually watch this trainwreck.

Denver · 30th July 2009, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Come on. Not even W.F. Buckley Jr. and Vidal Gore could meet such unrealistic standards.

True. And that's why it is hard for me to rate tv debates as substantive.

But hey, when I'm in the mood for entertainment, no problem.

Cicero · 30th July 2009, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Let's face it, most poltical debates on TV amount to invititng two ideologues to shout at each other rather then actually discuss the issues beyong the same tired old talking points.
But Tonigh's Larry King carries it to extremes.
One thing is for sure:It has been a long time until we see two liars like Coulter and Sharpton together again. Both have no compunction about going beyond the usual half truths, distortions, and cherry picking into telling out and out lies that even most political "spokesmen" would hesitate to make.
I am going to tape this but it might take a while for me to work up the courage, or get drunk enough, to actually watch this trainwreck.

You obviously have not seen the college hosted debate between A.C. and contributing editor for The New Republic, Peter Bienart on C-SPAN. What are these lies that A.C. is spreading? She is a pundit. She offers her opinions. When it comes to publishing facts, her books are well annotated.

Drudgewire · 30th July 2009, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Larry King, Ann Coulter, and Al Sharpton.

Wow.

If only we could take harness the power of stupid, this show could provide our planet with clean energy for decades to come.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

dudalb · 30th July 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

You obviously have not seen the college hosted debate between A.C. and contributing editor for The New Republic, Peter Bienart on C-SPAN. What are these lies that A.C. is spreading? She is a pundit. She offers her opinions. When it comes to publishing facts, her books are well annotated.

Oh please.
A lot of annontation means crap. It is all in how good are the sources you are citing. I can point of a LOT of works of pure woo...like Creationist literature...that are "well annotanted.
And explain the really outrageous opinions that AC makes on a regular basis/
BTW please note that most conservatives writers of any repute avoid being associated with Coulter.
Ideological blinders are a wonderful thing.

Cicero · 30th July 2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Oh please.
A lot of annontation means crap. It is all in how good are the sources you are citing. I can point of a LOT of works of pure woo...like Creationist literature...that are "well annotanted.
And explain the really outrageous opinions that AC makes on a regular basis/
BTW please note that most conservatives writers of any repute avoid being associated with Coulter.
Ideological blinders are a wonderful thing.

Perhaps you could cite these examples in her books that have "crap" annotations?

Coulter is a pundit, not a conservative writer. Who are these conservative pundits shunning her?

Even the plagiarism rap on A.C. falls flat.

"Ann Coulter plagiarism charges overblown"

"Coulter is a lot of things, but it doesn't look like plagiarism is one of them."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/7/11290/58796

Snide · 30th July 2009, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

When it comes to publishing facts, her books are well annotated.

Wow, I haven't seen that folly in a long time...I thought it died years ago.

Brainster · 30th July 2009, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

You obviously have not seen the college hosted debate between A.C. and contributing editor for The New Republic, Peter Bienart on C-SPAN. What are these lies that A.C. is spreading? She is a pundit. She offers her opinions. When it comes to publishing facts, her books are well annotated.

My first blog post ever was on Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media, talking about his supposed debunking of Ann Coulter's Slander. Of the first four things that Alterman brought up, one was a legitimate mistake (Coulter said that Jim Jeffords had voted for Clinton's tax increases and against Bush II's tax cuts, when actually he did exactly the opposite); one was a silly bit of nit-picking (Coulter had cited a November 2001 NY Times editorial to prove her point that the bipartisan spirit after 9-11 lasted "exactly three weeks"; obviously November 2001 was closer to two months than three weeks after 9-11), one was a debunking of a "guess" that she made on a TV show (so much for debunking her book, I suppose), and one was a case where Alterman disagreed with her numbers on a NY Times search for "liberal Republican" (I came up with a third set of numbers on my search, but confimed Coulter's essential point that the Times referred to "moderate Republicans" far more often than they did to "liberal Republicans", and to "conservative Democrats" far more often than "moderate Democrats"). So out of the first four items cited by Alterman, one was legit and the other three were at least mildly unfair criticisms as regards her book.

I don't like Coulter; she shoots from the lip, as when she notoriously said that the only thing she had against Timothy McVeigh was that he didn't target the NY Times' building, which should have resulted in her immediate banishment from the conservative ranks. She significantly coarsens the debate whenever she opens her yap. She's not a bad writer though and makes plenty of good points, although they are points better made by Bernie Goldberg, who does not undercut himself with his public utterances.

dudalb · 30th July 2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

I don't like Coulter; she shoots from the lip, as when she notoriously said that the only thing she had against Timothy McVeigh was that he didn't target the NY Times' building, which should have resulted in her immediate banishment from the conservative ranks. She significantly coarsens the debate whenever she opens her yap. She's not a bad writer though and makes plenty of good points, although they are points better made by Bernie Goldberg, who does not undercut himself with his public utterances.

Which is why she and the Rev Al are such a wonderful match for each other.
Look, Coulter might well make some good points, but her outrageous statements make few people outside the hardcore conservatives take her seriously.
And my statement that a lot of Annotations does not equally reliablity or accuracy stands.

ANd, BTW, I have similiar opinions about Michael Moore,a master of the half truth.

Pardalis · 30th July 2009, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate?

A washer vs a dryer, or a can of Pepsi vs a can of Sprite. Would be as entertaining and intellectually stimulating.

Cleon · 30th July 2009, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

A washer vs a dryer. Would be as entertaining and intellectually stimulating.

And they'd both be more interesting and less irritating to listen to than Larry King.

Denver · 30th July 2009, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

A washer vs a dryer, or a can of Pepsi vs a can of Sprite. Would be as entertaining and intellectually stimulating.

Personally, I think the washer would take the dryer to the cleaners.

Pardalis · 30th July 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Denver

Personally, I think the washer would take the dryer to the cleaners.

But the dryer would take the washer for a spin.

steve s · 30th July 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Perhaps you could cite these examples in her books that have "crap" annotations?

You mean like in her book Slander where she claimed that the New York Times is so out of touch with the mainstream America that it wouldn't write about the death of Dale Earnhardt. Except that the very next day after Earnhardt's death, the NYT ran a front page article about it.

Steve S.

dudalb · 30th July 2009, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

A washer vs a dryer, or a can of Pepsi vs a can of Sprite. Would be as entertaining and intellectually stimulating.

I agree about being intellectually stimulating, but watching Coutler and The Rev Al yelling at each other might have some entertainment value, in a "Plan 9 from Outer Space" sort of way.
And it may not.
Which is why I am taping it instead of watching it live.THank the FSM for fast forward.

Hokulele · 30th July 2009, 02:32 PM

People still watch Larry King?

Huh.

Pardalis · 30th July 2009, 02:37 PM

I'll watch if Jack Hanna the animal guy is on afterwards.

Cicero · 30th July 2009, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

You mean like in her book Slander where she claimed that the New York Times is so out of touch with the mainstream America that it wouldn't write about the death of Dale Earnhardt. Except that the very next day after Earnhardt's death, the NYT ran a front page article about it.

Steve S.

You mean where she actually said the following?

"The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the article began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!"
A.C.

Would it be too much to expect A.C.'s detractors to quote her accurately when they are posing as keepers of the truth flame?

Tricky · 30th July 2009, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Denver

I guess it would depend on whether I am in the mood for substance, or entertainment.

Entertainment might include Glen Beck vs Jon Stewart, or Sarah Palin vs just about anybody.

For substance? Tricky.

Wow! Thanks, Denver! Sorry though, I'm busy that night.

The Central Scrutinizer · 30th July 2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

CNN is billing it as "Left versus Right..no holds barred" on Larry King tonight.

Ann Coulter versus Al Sharpton.

We have reaches the bottom folks. I can't see how "political debate" gets any worse then this. It is the ulitmate "Whoever Wins,We Lose" situation.

I guess I don't have to point out that you misspelled "idiot", do I?

Denver · 30th July 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Wow! Thanks, Denver! Sorry though, I'm busy that night.

Even as I was typing the word, and hovering over the Reply key, I thought, would he see it? Would he comment? What are the odds?

I guess I got my sums wrong.

Sunray Breaker · 30th July 2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate?

Richard Dawkins vs. The Pope
Michael Shermer vs. Alex Jones
Naomi Klein vs. Anne Coulter
Derren Brown vs. John Edwards
Clinton vs. George W. Bush
Dick Cheney vs. Ghandi
Mother Theresa vs. Anton LaVey
Christopher Hitchens vs. Henry Kissinger (actually, I might put that at the top of my list, but I don't feel like copy pasting.

Tricky · 30th July 2009, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Denver

Even as I was typing the word, and hovering over the Reply key, I thought, would he see it? Would he comment? What are the odds?

I guess I got my sums wrong.

I use that joke every chance I get. (Originality is not my strong suit.) I'm sure you didn't figure that into your calculations.

steve s · 30th July 2009, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

You mean where she actually said the following?

"The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the article began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!"
A.C.

Would it be too much to expect A.C.'s detractors to quote her accurately when they are posing as keepers of the truth flame?

First off, I didn't have her book in front of me and was going by memory. Secondly, ANN IS FULL OF IT!!!!!

The article does not, I repeat NOT begin "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart."

The NYT article begins "DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. Feb 18. Stock car racing's greatest star, Dale Earnhardt, was killed today as he tried to block a car from catching the two front-runners on the last turn of the........"

Is it too much to expect A.C. to stop MAKING [RULE 8] UP?

Steve S.

billydkid · 30th July 2009, 04:51 PM

hard to know who to root for. Can they both lose???

Tricky · 30th July 2009, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

hard to know who to root for. Can they both lose???

True.

As a self-admitted liberal, I cannot think of a single person I'd like less to be defending liberalism than Sharpton. I'm betting there are many conservatives who have similar feelings about Coulter.

Tsukasa Buddha · 30th July 2009, 05:00 PM

A tornado just passed by my house...

Head towards that studio! Poseidon, I shall sacrifice my best lambs to thee!

GreyICE · 30th July 2009, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

First off, I didn't have her book in front of me and was going by memory. Secondly, ANN IS FULL OF IT!!!!!

The article does not, I repeat NOT begin "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart."

The NYT article begins "DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. Feb 18. Stock car racing's greatest star, Dale Earnhardt, was killed today as he tried to block a car from catching the two front-runners on the last turn of the........"

Is it too much to expect A.C. to stop MAKING [RULE 8] UP?

Steve S.

FYI, this is Coulter's own quote on her little factual boo-boo.

Quote:

In my three best-selling books—making the case for a president's impeachment, accusing liberals of systematic lying and propagandizing, arguing that Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot, 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!!! At least I didn't miss the Ukrainian famine (cf., Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty).

So we have to note that he's defending something that ANN COULTER no longer agrees is accurate.

Can we all just forget he exists now?

Corsair 115 · 30th July 2009, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate?

Personally, I'd vote for no one, because Larry King is one of the worst interviewers on television. How someone as incompetent as he is can keep his job and become sort of big deal celebrity at it is beyond my ability to understand.

Cicero · 30th July 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Personally, I'd vote for no one, because Larry King is one of the worst interviewers on television. How someone as incompetent as he is can keep his job and become sort of big deal celebrity at it is beyond my ability to understand.

I have no idea why CNN keeps him on the air when his ratings have been in the cellar for a decade. I guess CNN has become the same as MSNBC, HLN, E! or VH1 where shows can stay on the air with less than 500,000 viewers.

What is truly amazing about the proud to be clueless King is that even with a producer feeding information into his ear piece, King is still unable to summon up any facts or express any lucid opinion.

leftysergeant · 30th July 2009, 07:37 PM

Sharpton is still a more effrective public performer than the Coulter critter.

At least he has a sense of humor.

The only effect I notice after listening to the caustic little androgen is that the people selling the "reptilian over-lord" woo-woo actually seem more believeable. I think I have seen one of their agents passing for a woman...sort of.

30th July 2009, 10:56 AM	#1
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,444	CNN Hosts The Battle Of The Idiots.. CNN is billing it as "Left versus Right..no holds barred" on Larry King tonight. Ann Coulter versus Al Sharpton. We have reaches the bottom folks. I can't see how "political debate" gets any worse then this. It is the ulitmate "Whoever Wins,We Lose" situation.

30th July 2009, 11:23 AM	#2
Biscuit Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 745	Those two colliding could open an a worm hole bigger than anything the LHC could manage! The planet is not safe! I will be in my bomb shelter if anyone needs me.
Biscuit Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 745	__________________ "The only people more wrong, proudly call themselves skeptics. Skeptics exist to screw with your mind and display socially disfunctional behavior." - historian "I dont have it but you can look if you would like I dont have to defend myself to you your googler is not broke." - creekfreak

30th July 2009, 11:30 AM	#3
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by dudalb CNN is billing it as "Left versus Right..no holds barred" on Larry King tonight. Ann Coulter versus Al Sharpton. We have reaches the bottom folks. I can't see how "political debate" gets any worse then this. It is the ulitmate "Whoever Wins,We Lose" situation. Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate?
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

30th July 2009, 11:37 AM	#5
alfaniner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 7,648	I'd still like to see a decent Skeptic vs "Psychic" episode.
	__________________ It's pronounced "alpha-nine-er".

30th July 2009, 11:44 AM	#6
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by Denver I guess it would depend on whether I am in the mood for substance, or entertainment. Entertainment might include Glen Beck vs Jon Stewart, or Sarah Palin vs just about anybody. For substance? Tricky. Sharpton and A.C. has the same entertainment quotient as Beck and Stewart. You mean it would be "tricky" to find two representatives that could impart substantive information?
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

30th July 2009, 11:35 AM	#4
Denver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,737	Originally Posted by Cicero Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate? I guess it would depend on whether I am in the mood for substance, or entertainment. Entertainment might include Glen Beck vs Jon Stewart, or Sarah Palin vs just about anybody. For substance? Tricky.

30th July 2009, 11:47 AM	#7
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 14,360	Larry King, Ann Coulter, and Al Sharpton. Wow. If only we could take harness the power of stupid, this show could provide our planet with clean energy for decades to come.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky My blog

30th July 2009, 11:52 AM	#8
Denver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,737	Originally Posted by Cicero Sharpton and A.C. has the same entertainment quotient as Beck and Stewart. You mean it would be "tricky" to find two representatives that could impart substantive information? Two who watching would make me feel I've seen a substantive debate: so it would involve individuals who were intelligent, honest, foresighted, in touch with real issues, informed with real facts (not spin or talking points), and capable of a civil but intense debate with each other (rather than the camera).

30th July 2009, 11:56 AM	#9
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by Denver Two who watching would make me feel I've seen a substantive debate: so it would involve individuals who were intelligent, honest, foresighted, in touch with real issues, informed with real facts (not spin or talking points), and capable of a civil but intense debate with each other (rather than the camera). Come on. Not even W.F. Buckley Jr. and Vidal Gore could meet such unrealistic standards.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins Last edited by Cicero; 30th July 2009 at 11:57 AM.

30th July 2009, 11:57 AM	#10
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,444	Let's face it, most poltical debates on TV amount to invititng two ideologues to shout at each other rather then actually discuss the issues beyong the same tired old talking points. But Tonigh's Larry King carries it to extremes. One thing is for sure:It has been a long time until we see two liars like Coulter and Sharpton together again. Both have no compunction about going beyond the usual half truths, distortions, and cherry picking into telling out and out lies that even most political "spokesmen" would hesitate to make. I am going to tape this but it might take a while for me to work up the courage, or get drunk enough, to actually watch this trainwreck.

30th July 2009, 12:12 PM	#11
Denver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,737	Originally Posted by Cicero Come on. Not even W.F. Buckley Jr. and Vidal Gore could meet such unrealistic standards. True. And that's why it is hard for me to rate tv debates as substantive. But hey, when I'm in the mood for entertainment, no problem.

30th July 2009, 12:18 PM	#12
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by dudalb Let's face it, most poltical debates on TV amount to invititng two ideologues to shout at each other rather then actually discuss the issues beyong the same tired old talking points. But Tonigh's Larry King carries it to extremes. One thing is for sure:It has been a long time until we see two liars like Coulter and Sharpton together again. Both have no compunction about going beyond the usual half truths, distortions, and cherry picking into telling out and out lies that even most political "spokesmen" would hesitate to make. I am going to tape this but it might take a while for me to work up the courage, or get drunk enough, to actually watch this trainwreck. You obviously have not seen the college hosted debate between A.C. and contributing editor for The New Republic, Peter Bienart on C-SPAN. What are these lies that A.C. is spreading? She is a pundit. She offers her opinions. When it comes to publishing facts, her books are well annotated.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins Last edited by Cicero; 30th July 2009 at 12:20 PM.

30th July 2009, 12:30 PM	#14
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,444	Originally Posted by Cicero You obviously have not seen the college hosted debate between A.C. and contributing editor for The New Republic, Peter Bienart on C-SPAN. What are these lies that A.C. is spreading? She is a pundit. She offers her opinions. When it comes to publishing facts, her books are well annotated. Oh please. A lot of annontation means crap. It is all in how good are the sources you are citing. I can point of a LOT of works of pure woo...like Creationist literature...that are "well annotanted. And explain the really outrageous opinions that AC makes on a regular basis/ BTW please note that most conservatives writers of any repute avoid being associated with Coulter. Ideological blinders are a wonderful thing.

30th July 2009, 12:41 PM	#15
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by dudalb Oh please. A lot of annontation means crap. It is all in how good are the sources you are citing. I can point of a LOT of works of pure woo...like Creationist literature...that are "well annotanted. And explain the really outrageous opinions that AC makes on a regular basis/ BTW please note that most conservatives writers of any repute avoid being associated with Coulter. Ideological blinders are a wonderful thing. Perhaps you could cite these examples in her books that have "crap" annotations? Coulter is a pundit, not a conservative writer. Who are these conservative pundits shunning her? Even the plagiarism rap on A.C. falls flat. "Ann Coulter plagiarism charges overblown" "Coulter is a lot of things, but it doesn't look like plagiarism is one of them." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/7/11290/58796
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

30th July 2009, 12:45 PM	#16
Snide Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: A 6x6 cube Posts: 2,705	Originally Posted by Cicero When it comes to publishing facts, her books are well annotated. Wow, I haven't seen that folly in a long time...I thought it died years ago.

30th July 2009, 01:13 PM	#17
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	Originally Posted by Cicero You obviously have not seen the college hosted debate between A.C. and contributing editor for The New Republic, Peter Bienart on C-SPAN. What are these lies that A.C. is spreading? She is a pundit. She offers her opinions. When it comes to publishing facts, her books are well annotated. My first blog post ever was on Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media, talking about his supposed debunking of Ann Coulter's Slander. Of the first four things that Alterman brought up, one was a legitimate mistake (Coulter said that Jim Jeffords had voted for Clinton's tax increases and against Bush II's tax cuts, when actually he did exactly the opposite); one was a silly bit of nit-picking (Coulter had cited a November 2001 NY Times editorial to prove her point that the bipartisan spirit after 9-11 lasted "exactly three weeks"; obviously November 2001 was closer to two months than three weeks after 9-11), one was a debunking of a "guess" that she made on a TV show (so much for debunking her book, I suppose), and one was a case where Alterman disagreed with her numbers on a NY Times search for "liberal Republican" (I came up with a third set of numbers on my search, but confimed Coulter's essential point that the Times referred to "moderate Republicans" far more often than they did to "liberal Republicans", and to "conservative Democrats" far more often than "moderate Democrats"). So out of the first four items cited by Alterman, one was legit and the other three were at least mildly unfair criticisms as regards her book. I don't like Coulter; she shoots from the lip, as when she notoriously said that the only thing she had against Timothy McVeigh was that he didn't target the NY Times' building, which should have resulted in her immediate banishment from the conservative ranks. She significantly coarsens the debate whenever she opens her yap. She's not a bad writer though and makes plenty of good points, although they are points better made by Bernie Goldberg, who does not undercut himself with his public utterances.
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	__________________ 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog. Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

30th July 2009, 02:01 PM	#18
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,444	Quote: I don't like Coulter; she shoots from the lip, as when she notoriously said that the only thing she had against Timothy McVeigh was that he didn't target the NY Times' building, which should have resulted in her immediate banishment from the conservative ranks. She significantly coarsens the debate whenever she opens her yap. She's not a bad writer though and makes plenty of good points, although they are points better made by Bernie Goldberg, who does not undercut himself with his public utterances. Which is why she and the Rev Al are such a wonderful match for each other. Look, Coulter might well make some good points, but her outrageous statements make few people outside the hardcore conservatives take her seriously. And my statement that a lot of Annotations does not equally reliablity or accuracy stands. ANd, BTW, I have similiar opinions about Michael Moore,a master of the half truth.

30th July 2009, 02:09 PM	#19
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 19,181	Originally Posted by Cicero Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate? A washer vs a dryer, or a can of Pepsi vs a can of Sprite. Would be as entertaining and intellectually stimulating.
	__________________ "It's much better to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has got it wrong because it doesn't share your point of view." aggle-rithm "In reality, the most astonishingly incredible coincidence imaginable would be the complete absence of all coincidences." John Allen Paulos

30th July 2009, 02:10 PM	#20
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 14,360	Originally Posted by Pardalis A washer vs a dryer. Would be as entertaining and intellectually stimulating. And they'd both be more interesting and less irritating to listen to than Larry King.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky My blog

30th July 2009, 02:12 PM	#21
Denver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,737	Originally Posted by Pardalis A washer vs a dryer, or a can of Pepsi vs a can of Sprite. Would be as entertaining and intellectually stimulating. Personally, I think the washer would take the dryer to the cleaners.

30th July 2009, 02:24 PM	#22
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 19,181	Originally Posted by Denver Personally, I think the washer would take the dryer to the cleaners. But the dryer would take the washer for a spin.
	__________________ "It's much better to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has got it wrong because it doesn't share your point of view." aggle-rithm "In reality, the most astonishingly incredible coincidence imaginable would be the complete absence of all coincidences." John Allen Paulos

30th July 2009, 02:29 PM	#23
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	Originally Posted by Cicero Perhaps you could cite these examples in her books that have "crap" annotations? You mean like in her book Slander where she claimed that the New York Times is so out of touch with the mainstream America that it wouldn't write about the death of Dale Earnhardt. Except that the very next day after Earnhardt's death, the NYT ran a front page article about it. Steve S.
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

30th July 2009, 02:32 PM	#24
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,444	Originally Posted by Pardalis A washer vs a dryer, or a can of Pepsi vs a can of Sprite. Would be as entertaining and intellectually stimulating. I agree about being intellectually stimulating, but watching Coutler and The Rev Al yelling at each other might have some entertainment value, in a "Plan 9 from Outer Space" sort of way. And it may not. Which is why I am taping it instead of watching it live.THank the FSM for fast forward.
	Last edited by dudalb; 30th July 2009 at 02:34 PM.

30th July 2009, 02:32 PM	#25
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,339	People still watch Larry King? Huh.
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125

30th July 2009, 02:37 PM	#26
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 19,181	I'll watch if Jack Hanna the animal guy is on afterwards.
	__________________ "It's much better to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has got it wrong because it doesn't share your point of view." aggle-rithm "In reality, the most astonishingly incredible coincidence imaginable would be the complete absence of all coincidences." John Allen Paulos

30th July 2009, 02:38 PM	#27
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by steve s You mean like in her book Slander where she claimed that the New York Times is so out of touch with the mainstream America that it wouldn't write about the death of Dale Earnhardt. Except that the very next day after Earnhardt's death, the NYT ran a front page article about it. Steve S. You mean where she actually said the following? "The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the article began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!" A.C. Would it be too much to expect A.C.'s detractors to quote her accurately when they are posing as keepers of the truth flame?
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins Last edited by Cicero; 30th July 2009 at 02:39 PM.

30th July 2009, 02:44 PM	#28
Tricky Radical centrist Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 27,284	Originally Posted by Denver I guess it would depend on whether I am in the mood for substance, or entertainment. Entertainment might include Glen Beck vs Jon Stewart, or Sarah Palin vs just about anybody. For substance? Tricky. Wow! Thanks, Denver! Sorry though, I'm busy that night.

30th July 2009, 02:52 PM	#29
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 21,719	Originally Posted by dudalb CNN is billing it as "Left versus Right..no holds barred" on Larry King tonight. Ann Coulter versus Al Sharpton. We have reaches the bottom folks. I can't see how "political debate" gets any worse then this. It is the ulitmate "Whoever Wins,We Lose" situation. I guess I don't have to point out that you misspelled "idiot", do I?
	__________________ "I got to play with (Michael Goudeau's balls) briefly, and they are primo quality. Heavy, soft, and pliant." - Jeff Wagg "You are always so helpful, rational, and polite." - SaulOhio http://www.stopsylvia.com

30th July 2009, 03:00 PM	#30
Denver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 2,737	Originally Posted by Tricky Wow! Thanks, Denver! Sorry though, I'm busy that night. Even as I was typing the word, and hovering over the Reply key, I thought, would he see it? Would he comment? What are the odds? I guess I got my sums wrong.

30th July 2009, 03:05 PM	#31
Sunray Breaker Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Denver Posts: 447	Quote: Whom would you like Larry King to have on for a political debate? Richard Dawkins vs. The Pope Michael Shermer vs. Alex Jones Naomi Klein vs. Anne Coulter Derren Brown vs. John Edwards Clinton vs. George W. Bush Dick Cheney vs. Ghandi Mother Theresa vs. Anton LaVey Christopher Hitchens vs. Henry Kissinger (actually, I might put that at the top of my list, but I don't feel like copy pasting.

30th July 2009, 03:15 PM	#32
Tricky Radical centrist Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 27,284	Originally Posted by Denver Even as I was typing the word, and hovering over the Reply key, I thought, would he see it? Would he comment? What are the odds? I guess I got my sums wrong. I use that joke every chance I get. (Originality is not my strong suit.) I'm sure you didn't figure that into your calculations.

30th July 2009, 03:24 PM	#33
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	Originally Posted by Cicero You mean where she actually said the following? "The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the article began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!" A.C. Would it be too much to expect A.C.'s detractors to quote her accurately when they are posing as keepers of the truth flame? First off, I didn't have her book in front of me and was going by memory. Secondly, *ANN IS FULL OF IT!!!!!* The article does not, I repeat *NOT* begin "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." The NYT article begins "DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. Feb 18. Stock car racing's greatest star, Dale Earnhardt, was killed today as he tried to block a car from catching the two front-runners on the last turn of the........" Is it too much to expect A.C. to stop MAKING [RULE 8] UP? Steve S.
steve s Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,513	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

30th July 2009, 04:51 PM	#34
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 4,701	hard to know who to root for. Can they both lose???
	__________________ I want to live in Colorado!

30th July 2009, 04:54 PM	#35
Tricky Radical centrist Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 27,284	Originally Posted by billydkid hard to know who to root for. Can they both lose??? True. As a self-admitted liberal, I cannot think of a single person I'd like less to be defending liberalism than Sharpton. I'm betting there are many conservatives who have similar feelings about Coulter.

30th July 2009, 05:00 PM	#36
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 4,637	A tornado just passed by my house... Head towards that studio! Poseidon, I shall sacrifice my best lambs to thee!
	__________________ Monk to Zen Master: What happens after death, master? Zen master: I don’t know. Monk: But you are a master! Master: Yes, but I’m not a dead one yet.