Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America

[peejay 327]

I never much cared for her TV appearances as she can come off as being pushy and obnoxious.

However, I definitely wouldn't label her as "brainless". She often appears in HumanEvents online as a guest writer and she hits the nail on the head more often than not. Liberals hate her because she is spot on in many of her observations.

Unfortunately some of the bombs she has thrown out into the media to get attention have backfired on her and lost her some credibility.

Edited January 16, 2009 by peejay

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Perino: Coulter doesn't represent GOP women

"Ann Coulter is very popular ... but she doesn't represent Republican women," said outgoing White House press secretary Dana Perino at a breakfast with reporters on Friday.

Perino's remarks came as she discussed her plans post-White House, specifically mulling over possible books that she might like to write. She said among several ideas she's thought about is a tome on how Republican women are "misunderstood."

"There's room out there to represent the grace and dignity of Republican women like Laura Bush [and former Rep.] Susan Molinari," she said.

[Yoink 7]

Did you hear Perino try to make jokes today... that is one stiff ######

[chri'stina 190]

Let's face it. You don't ever want to read a book by Ann Coulter. Read this so you don't have to!

I don't think Coulter's agenda is any secret. I just wonder why Conservatives here can't be honest and denounce her as the lightweight propagandist she is.

Why is it the only conservative commentators people quote regularly on here are the Coulter's and Limbaugh's of the scene. Surely there are better, more academic, less sensationalist commentators out there - with opinions that don't involve demonizing a caricature of the "other side".

Well not sure if she is a propagandist, just loud and obnoxious with views that go far to the right. I do denounce her, but I think you mean people who get media attention.

[bhajishah 4]

WOw Bush Cheney big ####### still making money selling her Shaytan propaganda

[mox 298]

Anybody who is so bound by ideology that they can see only evil, incompetence, and stupidity from the opposing ideology is simply too caught up in their own egotism to be of any use. That goes for Ann Coulter or Al Frankin. That goes for Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes. It's just stupid, unhelpful, and hinders political discourse for everybody.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Let's face it. You don't ever want to read a book by Ann Coulter. Read this so you don't have to!

I don't think Coulter's agenda is any secret. I just wonder why Conservatives here can't be honest and denounce her as the lightweight propagandist she is.

Why is it the only conservative commentators people quote regularly on here are the Coulter's and Limbaugh's of the scene. Surely there are better, more academic, less sensationalist commentators out there - with opinions that don't involve demonizing a caricature of the "other side".

Well not sure if she is a propagandist, just loud and obnoxious with views that go far to the right. I do denounce her, but I think you mean people who get media attention.

Well that too - but I think she does propagandise. She's been caught a number of times quoting sources (like the New York Times) completely out of the original context in order to make her points.

[mox 298]

Well that too - but I think she does propagandise. She's been caught a number of times quoting sources (like the New York Times) completely out of the original context in order to make her points.

Wish I still had the source, but somebody once did a fact check on all of her books published to date, and it turned out something like 95% of the bibliography was either out of context or had nothing to do with how she was referencing it. This wasn't just one book, this was all of her books. People often say "how do you know it's ####### if you don't read it?" Well, this is how I know. I don't mind reading opposing points of view, but I have no time for intellectual dishonesty.

[alienlovechild 75]

That goes for Ann Coulter or Al Frankin.

That's Al Franken. The difference is Franken will be a U.S. senator (is it settled yet?) and his book was class reading in a college class where I went to school. Coulter has no real power and people aren't force to read her books.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I never much cared for her TV appearances as she can come off as being pushy and obnoxious.

However, I definitely wouldn't label her as "brainless". She often appears in HumanEvents online as a guest writer and she hits the nail on the head more often than not. Liberals hate her because she is spot on in many of her observations.

Unfortunately some of the bombs she has thrown out into the media to get attention have backfired on her and lost her some credibility.

You see - even there you can't resist buying into the silly partisan bickering. Its not much to ask to step back and try to look at things objectively.

At least for my part, I (and most of the people I know) dislike Coulter because she lowers the standard of political debate. The fact that she (and people like her) has so much prominence in the media is really the ultimate failure of our media (rather than the ever-present bleating about liberal bias) - it gets people fixated on irrelevant issues and ignoring what's actually important.

[mox 298]

That's Al Franken. The difference is Franken will be a U.S. senator (is it settled yet?) and his book was class reading in a college class where I went to school. Coulter has no real power and people aren't force to read her books.

But it's irrelevant to my point. I don't care if Al Franken is a Senator, he's still an idealogue. He happens to be on my side for many of my concerns, but honestly I'd just as soon he stay out of the political arena. Ideologues are bad, no matter what side they represent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well that too - but I think she does propagandise. She's been caught a number of times quoting sources (like the New York Times) completely out of the original context in order to make her points.

Wish I still had the source, but somebody once did a fact check on all of her books published to date, and it turned out something like 95% of the bibliography was either out of context or had nothing to do with how she was referencing it. This wasn't just one book, this was all of her books. People often say "how do you know it's ####### if you don't read it?" Well, this is how I know. I don't mind reading opposing points of view, but I have no time for intellectual dishonesty.

When her last book came out there were allegations of plagiarism as well. I didn't hear how that turned out.

[Dan J 277]

That goes for Ann Coulter or Al Frankin.

That's Al Franken. The difference is Franken will be a U.S. senator (is it settled yet?) and his book was class reading in a college class where I went to school. Coulter has no real power and people aren't force to read her books.

So you are saying that Coulter is actually a comedian? How come no one laughs at her "jokes"?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's Al Franken. The difference is Franken will be a U.S. senator (is it settled yet?) and his book was class reading in a college class where I went to school. Coulter has no real power and people aren't force to read her books.

But it's irrelevant to my point. I don't care if Al Franken is a Senator, he's still an idealogue. He happens to be on my side for many of my concerns, but honestly I'd just as soon he stay out of the political arena. Ideologues are bad, no matter what side they represent.

Agreed. There's too much emphasis on these sorts of commentators in our media - they do little to inform political debates.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Sweet Ann making the libruls angry.