Coulter compounds falsehoods in "point-by-point" response to Media Matters' fact-check of Guilty
SUMMARY: In a Newsmax.com article, purporting to respond to Media Matters' recent analysis documenting falsehoods in her new book, Ann Coulter advanced new ones.
In a January 7 article on the conservative website Newsmax.com, purporting to provide a "point-by-point" response to Media Matters for America's recent analysis documenting numerous falsehoods in her new book, Ann Coulter simply compounded the falsehoods.
Coulter's new source still doesn't support her claim that liberals "immediately praised" hoaxers for staging hate crimes
Media Matters noted that Coulter's claim in Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America that two black Duke University students who engaged in a hoax by hanging a black doll from a noose were "immediately praised" by "liberals" was not supported by the sources she cited. In her Newsmax response, Coulter defended herself by falsely suggesting that Media Matters had actually faulted her for not citing any sources for her claim. In the Newsmax piece, Coulter wrote:
"Just because something is not footnoted does not make it false. I am one of the few writers who includes footnotes as service to my readers. "But as long as you ask, among the praise for the perpetrators of the hoax hate crime was a statement by the president of Duke in a baccalaureate address reprinted in the Duke magazine. (Available at: http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/ 070801/depgar.html) President Nannerl Keohane cited the hoax as a 'protest,' listing it with other admirable protest activities pursued by Duke students that year. She went on to note that in response to the protests, '"[p]rogress has been made.'"
In Guilty, Coulter asserted: "Two black students later admitted they were the culprits and were immediately praised for bringing attention to the problem of racism on campus." This was followed by a footnote citing a Chronicle of Higher Education article and a Weekly Standard article. But neither source supported Coulter's claim that the students were "immediately praised" by "liberals." The Chronicle article did not report that the students were "praised," but rather that "[s]ome classmates defended the two students," while the Weekly Standard article cited the Chronicle article in writing that "some at Duke defended the act, claiming it high-lighted the problem of race relations on campus." Further, the "statement by the president of Duke" that Coulter cited in her rebuttal also does not support her assertion about the hoaxers. In fact, Keohane cited the event as an example of how "[r]ace has indeed been relevant" during the graduating students' time at Duke:
At your opening convocation in August 1997, I spoke on the theme of freedom -- the kind of freedom you might expect at Duke, and my advice on how to use it wisely. I also told you about some of the things you would need to grapple with, freely and responsibly, during your Duke years. One of those predictions was that race would surely matter in your lives. During your first semester, students hung a black doll in effigy on the quad to protest what they saw as our inhospitable environment for African Americans. The Black Student Alliance held an Allen Building "study-in," and Race Day in front of the Chapel drew some five hundred people. Now, in your senior year, several hundred students marched silently through the quad to present a petition demanding still more concrete action to address issues of tolerance, openness, and diversity. Race has indeed been relevant. Progress has been made; but there is still work to be done -- at Duke and in the world outside -- work that you can now begin to tackle with the strength of your degree.
Additionally, Keohane's speech did not come "immediately" after the November 1997 hoax -- it was the baccalaureate address for the Class of 2001. Indeed, during the speech, Keohane noted that the event occurred during the audience's "first semester."
Coulter falsely claimed Swift Boat Veterans did not alter their website's account
Media Matters noted that contrary to Coulter's claim in Guilty that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story," the group altered its website's account of the December 2, 1968, mission for which the U.S. Navy awarded Kerry his first Purple Heart three days after Media Matters noted that the account was inconsistent with that of retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., the group's star witness. Coulter responded in the Newsmax piece:
The Swifties did not alter their website's account of the December 2, 1968, mission. They always said Admiral Schachte was on the skimmer with Kerry. Schachte has so sworn in an affidavit. The correction of the website entry was to fix a mistaken description of Schachte as an enlisted man, rather than the lieutenant that he was. That is not a 'retraction.'
In fact, the "correction" did not merely "fix a mistaken description" of Schachte's rank. The revision claims that the skimmer was "under the command of Lt. William Schachte" and that he and Kerry "were accompanied by an enlisted man who operated the outboard motor." The original, however, referred to Kerry as "commanding a small, foam-filled 'skimmer' craft with two enlisted men" and made no mention of Schachte's presence on board the skimmer. The original description matches Kerry's own account, as well as the account of Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, two enlisted men who insist that: (1) Schachte was not on the skimmer; (2) that Kerry was in command; and (3) that Runyon and Zaladonis were the only other people besides Kerry on the small craft.
Coulter responded to debunking of her criticism of Kerry's "home-movie camera" by calling Media Matters "nuts"
Media Matters noted that Coulter's assertion in Guilty that Kerry "carrie[d] a home-movie camera to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself" was a discredited charge previously made by Internet gossip Matt Drudge during the 2004 presidential election. Media Matters further noted that The New York Times subsequently reported on the allegation without noting that executive editor and then-columnist Bill Keller had debunked it in a column two years earlier. In her response, Coulter wrote only, "Now Media Matters is accusing me of lying for believing what is printed in the New York Times. Can I please stop responding to these nuts now?" However, Media Matters faulted Coulter for repeating a long-since discredited allegation that has appeared in a number of news outlets, The New York Times among them. Further, as Media Matters noted in its analysis of Guilty's falsehoods, Keller debunked the re-enactment charge in a 2002 column. After viewing 40 minutes of footage Kerry shot in Vietnam, Keller wrote:
The first thing to be said is that the senator's movies are not self-aggrandizing. Mr. Kerry is hardly in the film, and never strikes so much as a heroic pose. These are the souvenirs of a 25-year-old guy sent to an exotic place on an otherworldly mission, who bought an 8-millimeter camera in the PX and shot a few hours of travelogue, most of it pretty boring if you didn't live through it.
Keller also wrote that, according to the Swift Boat Sailors Association, "a group of veterans who manned" the kind of riverboat that Kerry commanded, "lots of enlisted men did the same."
MMFA looks silly in my opinion by trying to parse Coulter's statements in this failed attempt at a rebuttal.
I'll keep in mind that, in your opinion, Sarah Palin was a "genius" choice for VP, and the Nazi party was a left wing organization.Do you really think your opinion is worth anything more than a laugh around here?
I come to Media Matters just to read your responses. They always make me have a big smile. Thanks for your comments here and at other sites!!!
You have to admit, Col., that this site has so many Ann Coulter articles and blogs it should be called MEDEA MATTERS. Have you ever gone to her Wikipedia page? It makes some mighty strange reading.
Well, the two choices you mention show his opinion is correct so far. Do you have some more to give us a better selection?
And your support really gives AA tons of credibility. Now that you've weighed in in his favor, Col. Sanders really looks foolish for ever questioning him at all.
I have to agree, Brab. If there was any question about the validity of Barney's "controversial" opinions, I think Philib's support removes any doubt. Do I have egg on my face?
What parsing? Coulter has always changed her stories when confronted with them. This is nothing new.
Yup. Expect to see her point by point response to our point by point response of her point by point response tomorrow.
In other words, the beast fuels the beast which keeps both beasts relevant.
;)
a beast off! OMG!
Yes, the morning network shows that regurgitate Skeletor to millions of people are insignificant when compared to the almighty power of the nation's 24,676th most popular website.
Where did you get that Pete?
I believe we're more popular than that?
alexa.com
Say, pete, I went to that there web site, alexa.com. Pretty interesting stuff. By their calculations, MMFA is not even in the top 100,000. Nos. 1 and 2 are Yahoo and Google, of course. YouTube is No. 3, and you know what that is. I guess we have to be ashamed that vastly more people go to YouPorn (No. 49) than to MM. I am still trying to figure out what the point is.
Well, I guess when you rank #24,676th, the best way to inch up those numbers is by going after a best selling author 24/7 and hope she goes after you too.
That might make sense if this was a new phenomenon. MMfA has been criticizing her for years.
If at first you don't succeed........
It would suggest that site popularity isn't the motivation, though.
Well that makes sense, popularity and traffic are not a motivation for this site. Silly me.
I didn't say traffic wasn't a concern for the management. I'm saying it's hard to attribute attention to a flamethrower like Coulter to other motivations, when the motivation for criticizing her should be readily apparent.
So it's not a motivation but it is a concern?
Parsing cleanup, aisle 1
Have I been uncivil or unreasonable here? Let's try to be mature. Motivation or concern, whatever. The point is there's no reason to think it's the cause of any criticism of Coulter here.
But wait a minute, now you're backtracking and saying that traffic is a motivation, as you say either word is "whatever"? So that certainly invalidates your earlier point when you said site popularity isn't a motivation, which was your point of contention to mine.
I'm a little confused....
If you think the words mean the same, then there's no "parsing". If you think they mean something different, then you understand the reason I didn't use the word "motivation". I'm not sure which you think is the case.
Popularity can be a motive without it being the primary one, or being acted upon.
I never said they were the same, you did. Hence the parsing label.
I didn't really see any significant change of meaning when I used the word "concern". Does this affect the point I'm making in any way? If it's inconsistent, has it been adequately clarified now? If not, how can I help you further?
No, it's very clear to me, thank you. Your original bone of contention with me here is now invalidated, as you said "It would suggest that site popularity isn't the motivation, though".
Enjoy your day.
No, it isn't. It isn't the motivation behind it. It's surely a consideration of the general running of the site, but there's no reason to think that they're criticizing Coulter because they want popularity.
Of course you are confused Tommy. I mean if you actually read for meaning it would help, but alas you just want to score points rather than pay attention. MM DOES care about how many people come to this site. I mean duh! Why put all this up if you don't want people to read it. Oh and what is the mission of MMFA? I know you know it mister WITH! Think think think... OH Yeah! It to point out CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION. If only this article had anything to do with that... oh wait it does!
So if you are going to have a site about conservative misinformation would you ignore Coulter, a best selling author? Heck no! And not just to get more people to visit MMFA, but because it's WHY PEOPLE COME TO THIS FRIKKIN SITE! Please buy a clue.
.......keep asking WITH?
A quick look at the overall trend on the Traffic History Graph says otherwise.
The only place your beast fueling theory holds true is inside your head.
Really? Because traffic is down here and Ann has been relatively silent, with little attention given to her lately around here, hmm? That seems to coincide. If you think MMFA doesn't like the attention that their targets gives them then it is your head that needs attention, not mine.
The inflated numbers might be due to the election process. After that's over, it seems reasonable they would drop. That's especially true when you consider that people get more busy with the holidays.
Well, nobody knows for sure do they? But to put forth that popularity isn't a motivation for this site, when popularity and traffic increases the chance for more donators, especially in light of the New Year countdown asking for donations at the end of every year, is not only incredibly naive, but bad business.
Since there's a genuine motivation to oppose Coulter's presence on the air, alternative theories aren't required to explain that opposition. There's nothing unusual, inconsistent, or inexplicable about it. They should get the benefit of the doubt simply because there's no reason for the doubt in the first place.
So would you also say that, as an example, radio stations that put right wing radio on the air have a genuine motivation to do so for ratings, and to present an alternative theory that they want to push the political agenda is also not required? I mean "There's nothing unusual, inconsistent, or inexplicable about it. They should get the benefit of the doubt simply because there's no reason for the doubt in the first place"
Sure, but haven't there been liberals who outperform conservatives, and yet still don't get picked up for more markets? I thought that was the case, and if so then obviously ratings wouldn't be the only motivation.
So your "genuine motivation" rules exist for those with whom you disagree with politically, but those that agree with you get the benefit of the doubt.
Got it.
No, because if someone excels on the left but is not rewarded, then it can't be all about ratings. That would be inexplicable, therefore another motivation has to be involved.
Of course it is. And your sole motivation is and always has been left vs. right, 100% politically motivated here. Despite your insistence that you are some fair arbiter of facts. Which is why you have no credibility with me, because you judge and evaluate everything through your rigorous partisan persuasions. And your opinions reflect that in every post. Which is why I get under your skin so much, because I don't. Oh well....
I have no idea what you're ranting about. You think Coulter is a worthless flamethrower as well, so I'm not sure what partisan motivation you think I have here.
Yes, I do think she is a worthless flamethrower as well. Which is why I am puzzled why MMFA spends so much time on a worthless flamethrower, unless it's because of what I initially said about the beasts is correct.
It took you awhile, but you finally came around.
Probably because worthless flamethrowers shouldn't be given airtime.
So what's "partisan" about this, again?
Partisan went to your refusal to admit to the radio station owner example I gave you about benefit of the doubt and genuine motivation. You flunked that.
This goes to your refusal to admit the possibilities of other motivations in highlighting Miss Coulter, in hopes of gaining some needed attention around here. Because worthless flamethrowers needn't be given the time of day by anyone other than media outlets who care only about ratings.
Are you clear now?
"Partisan went to your refusal to admit to the radio station owner example I gave you about benefit of the doubt and genuine motivation. You flunked that."
Did I not explain why? You didn't address what I said. Can I only avoid the "partisan" label by accepting your examples, even if they might not be valid?
"This goes to your refusal to admit the possibilities of other motivations in highlighting Miss Coulter, in hopes of gaining some needed attention around here. Because worthless flamethrowers needn't be given the time of day by anyone other than media outlets who care only about ratings."
I never said there wasn't a possibility. I'm saying it's not reasonable to argue it as likely. Your last sentence doesn't make any sense. The fact that someone who doesn't belong on the air is put on the air is certainly a valid concern.
What I see is you assign possible sinister motivations for those you don't like politically, and give a benefit of the doubt to those you do like. As if political persuasions are somehow a barometer of integrity or honor. I don't view motivations in such political context, that is the difference between you and me. And I am not blinded by my protection of any political party, or left vs right, to care. You have demonstrated over and over that you do. Sorry, that is the way I see it.
Again, I explained the reasoning behind the idea that "it's not all about ratings" for your example. You're free to address that, but in the meantime you don't have any basis for questioning my motivation.
I didn't say anything about political parties in general. If you have an example that serves Republicans or maligns Democrats, that's fine. You provided a single example which I'm not sure is valid. Why that proves such a broad accusation against me is something of a mystery.
Oh please, throughout our storied history on these boards you think this is the only example I have ever put forth? This is just a good example. Left wing motivations are above reproach and deserve the benefit of the doubt, yet for right wing radio station owners "therefore another motivation has to be involved".
I don't expect you to see it, but it's there.
You're making generalizations I haven't made. If you can come up with an example where there has to be another motivation for the "left wing", then by all means present it. "Therefore another motivation has to be involved" for your example was aptly explained, and you have yet to address that. It doesn't become magically valid just because you wish it to be.
We will never agree about what motivates you on this website, so we will continue to defend the points we make and go from there. You seem to like to tell me what I mean all the time, too bad you aren't able to take what you dish out on a regular basis.
Now you're talking about interpretations, not assigning motivation. I say what you seem to mean when that's what you seem to mean and you don't offer a reasonable alternate explanation. And when you cling to an argument that makes no sense, then your motivation can be questioned because the motivation is clearly not to make a valid argument.
If either of those apply to me, then go for it. You haven't shown how.
A hardline partisan's default excuse when they don't accept an opinion other than their own is to keep harping for a "reasonable alternate explanation".
A hardline partisan's default excuse when they don't agree with, or in your case accept, a particular argument they claim another clings to is to say it "makes no sense".
If you think you've bolstered your position here as some fair minded non-partisan with those little admissions, think again.
If you think you've bolstered your position with personal attacks and empty assertions, you might want to reconsider as well.
Oh, and another, when confronted with the truth you can't deny, you play victim. I understand.
I'm not playing victim. Questioning my motivation simply because I disagree with you is a personal attack. Do you really dispute that?
Yes, a personal attack would be for me to call you a derogatory name or an unprovoked slur. I did not do that. If you think I have, then either you have very thin skin or you haven't read some of the attacks leveled around here by various posters.
As for your motivations, I stand by my opinions of them. However, unlike you, I can accept your disagreement. I just don't happen to share it.
"Of course it is. And your sole motivation is and always has been left vs. right, 100% politically motivated here. Despite your insistence that you are some fair arbiter of facts. Which is why you have no credibility with me, because you judge and evaluate everything through your rigorous partisan persuasions. And your opinions reflect that in every post. Which is why I get under your skin so much, because I don't. Oh well...."
So basically saying that I'm a partisan hack isn't derogatory and unprovoked? Whether it compares to other attacks or not really isn't relevant, it's still an attack.
This is bizarre. After having a fit because I disputed something you said, you "accept" my disagreement? What possible definition are you using for that word?
I described your behavior as I see it, if you affix the hack label to it that is on you, not me. Playing the victim doesn't become you, but nice deflection tactic anyway.
As for what disagreement I accept, that would be yours in not agreeing with my opinions of your partisan motivations.
Just because I "have a fit" doesn't mean I don't accept your opinion. You see, that is the part you just cannot fathom, that somebody can actually disagree and accept an opinion at the same time. You have never been able to deal with that very simple concept, for you it's all about your opinion = right, and the other = wrong, not accepting another opinion, or playing lawyer on this board and treating every argument as if you have them on your own little witness stand.
It has nothing to do with the passion in which one defends their argument at all, we all do that. It's about simple acknowledgement that another opinion is valid, and just because we don't agree with it doesn't mean a "reasonable alternate explanation" is necessary. Or it "makes no sense".
When you finally stop acting as if this is your courtroom and start accepting other opinions and points of view, perhaps you won't feel that another, differing opinion is a personal attack. I hope I have helped you.
"Of course it is. And your sole motivation is and always has been left vs. right, 100% politically motivated here."
I don't know how else you would describe that. That's pretty clearly stated.
"Just because I "have a fit" doesn't mean I don't accept your opinion. You see, that is the part you just cannot fathom, that somebody can actually disagree and accept an opinion at the same time."
"Partisan went to your refusal to admit to the radio station owner example I gave you about benefit of the doubt and genuine motivation. You flunked that."
That doesn't sound particularly "accepting".
"It has nothing to do with the passion in which one defends their argument at all, we all do that. It's about simple acknowledgement that another opinion is valid, and just because we don't agree with it doesn't mean a "reasonable alternate explanation" is necessary. Or it "makes no sense"."
You're taking my words out of context. The "reasonable alternate explanation" was about interpretation. For instance, if someone said "Republicans should be refused the right to vote after the Bush years", then said that they didn't mean that, you would need some reasonable alternate explanation as to what they meant. Their just saying so wouldn't cut it. And if your opinion doesn't stand up to reason, then why is it valid? You have a right to it, but that doesn't make it reasonable. Your "right" to an opinion is what you've always talked about, and nobody's denying you that.
"When you finally stop acting as if this is your courtroom and start accepting other opinions and points of view, perhaps you won't feel that another, differing opinion is a personal attack. I hope I have helped you."
If my "opinion" was that you're a jackass because you disagreed with me, that would be a personal attack.
Let me give you a more familiar frame of reference. You will never hear, in a courtroom, a lawyer say something such as "Ok, I accept your disagreement, or you have a point, even though I don't agree", when cross-examining a witness. That would be not only ridiculous, but career suicide. The lawyer will never secede any argument, always steering the questioning in the direction of getting the witness to secede, or to make their point, there is no compromise or accepting of any other opinion.
This is your problem. When you are faced with an opinion that you don't like, you automatically shift into that lawyer mode, I don't know why, maybe it's some debate tactic you learned in college, who knows? But this is not a courtroom, you are not a lawyer here, and your adversary is not your witness.
Start there, maybe this is the first step.
"You will never hear, in a courtroom, a lawyer say something such as "Ok, I accept your disagreement, or you have a point, even though I don't agree", when cross-examining a witness."
But you don't have a point. Your premise relies on the idea that you've made some reasoned argument that I'm dodging. I seem to have to beg you to address the point about the radio station which you yourself brought up in the first place.
"When you are faced with an opinion that you don't like, you automatically shift into that lawyer mode, I don't know why, maybe it's some debate tactic you learned in college, who knows?"
What's the difference between this and simply making a reasoned argument? What do you do when you think you have a point and someone isn't addressing it? Do you say "you have a point"? No, you accuse people of "dodging". I don't see you saying "you have a point" here, you just launch personal attacks and then claim I'm playing the victim when I point it out.
I'd like you to do me a favor. I'd like you to go through this thread again and pay attention to what I've said. I haven't been hostile, condescending or provocative. I haven't called you names, or questioned your intelligence or motives. All I've done is disagreed with you. I explained myself fully, and even asked if I had clarified myself enough for you. But what I get in return is questioning my motives by calling me a partisan, and going back to the "lawyerly" criticism (whatever that's actually supposed to mean, anyway).
So what exactly is it that people are supposed to do? How does one disagree with you and not prompt you into resorting to these sorts of tactics? And if you're going to say something about my history, then that would apply to you, so people would have the right to be hostile to you no matter how civil and reasoned your disagreements might be. This is a genuine question, not playing the victim or whining or whatever else. Thanks in advance.
"I say what you seem to mean when that's what you seem to mean and you don't offer a reasonable alternate explanation. And when you cling to an argument that makes no sense, then your motivation can be questioned because the motivation is clearly not to make a valid argument"
This was your most telling post of the day, and the crux of most of our disagreements.
If you don't agree with my opinion, you demand a "reasonable alternate explanation". You reflexively think I am dodging or lying when I tell you what I meant, or what I said, that admittedly may have been originally open to interpretation. However, once I have been adamant and honest in my clarification, you refuse to accept it because in your mind it means you lost the argument, which is tantamount to abject failure in your lawyerly approach. Or it's because you despise my opinions so much that you will never concede their validity.
The same goes for my arguments which you say "makes no sense". If you can't refute the argument you find something within, or a meta point, to dissect and work that angle, through the back door, where the original point is so lost that it becomes irrelevant. Typical lawyerly tactic again.
I don't expect any of this to sink in, god forbid you acknowledge or agree with any of it. So don't worry. I ACCEPT THAT.
We disagree, again.....
The "reasonable alternate explanation" has nothing to do with anything on this thread. You brought up interpretation, which is a completely different subject from anything that had been discussed here. You seem to think we're talking about the thread from yesterday or something, and I'm not sure why. I haven't brought it up. As for arguments not making sense, the question still remains. What do you do when you think someone hasn't answered your questions? How is your behavior preferable to mine in that regard?
None of this addresses my question, it's just a variation on the "lawyerly" theme. What have I done on this thread that warrants your behavior? I'd really like to know.
What behavior? If your feelings have been hurt on this thread or you think I've been out of line, then I apologize.
If someone doesn't answer a question of mine, well so what. I ask, they don't answer, I move on. You don't.
"I'd like you to do me a favor. I'd like you to go through this thread again and pay attention to what I've said. I haven't been hostile, condescending or provocative. I haven't called you names, or questioned your intelligence or motives. All I've done is disagreed with you. I explained myself fully, and even asked if I had clarified myself enough for you. But what I get in return is questioning my motives by calling me a partisan, and going back to the "lawyerly" criticism (whatever that's actually supposed to mean, anyway)."
That behavior. It was very clearly spelled out already, so I'm not sure how you missed it. My feelings aren't hurt, but of course you've been out of line. I appreciate your apology, and even more I appreciate that you might be having a long-overdue moment of lucidity.
There are many times in the past when you've accused me of "dodging" a question and continued to ask even after unnecessary clarification on my part. Don't give me "I move on", because I know it's not true from first-hand experience.
I'll take your first line as an answer to my question, meaning that there's absolutely no way to disagree with you without you resorting to this sort of behavior.
If my feelings were as easily hurt as yours, I would be upset, after just get a scolding on my insensitive behavior towards you, you stick this to me "a long-overdue moment of lucidity".
Nothing "hostile, condescending or provocative. I haven't called you names, or questioned your intelligence or motives" about that.
:)
i have followed this and the one from yesterday and you both are a couple of hard heads who won't concede ground to the other no matter what. But tommy, Brabatino is a hypocrit, you just aced him out on that for wimpering about being treated so badly here. It's fun to see you two go at it though. my .02
Actually, that's not true even by Tommy's standards. Since he reserves the right to insult people who "deserve" it, then he would deserve to be insulted based on his behavior. Even if that were to be some sort of below-the-belt comment, it's fair by Tommy's rules.
Really? So what did I specifically say to force you to insult me, since you say I deserved it, with this "What behavior? If your feelings have been hurt on this thread or you think I've been out of line, then I apologize"
Because you answered me with this "a long-overdue moment of lucidity".
And I apologized and everything. James is right, you are indeed a hypocrite.
Because you've been pawning off your responsibility for your behavior for years. If I interject into a conversation, then you have every right to lob an insult at me. If I tell you to put up or shut up, then you can insult my mother. The fact that you actually comprehended the fact that you do go "out of line" without the help of anyone else is, indeed, a long-overdue moment of lucidity. You've rarely, if ever, allowed yourself to recognize that fact before.
I said I appreciate your apology. But as you said, "maybe this is the first step". You have to understand why your apology is so unusual, because that is part of your problem.
"Because you've been pawning off your responsibility for your behavior for years"
Can you be specific please, or is just a knee jerk reaction when you're losing an argument? Because you know that is the biggest lie you have ever told on these boards. I take sole responsibility for every word I have ever typed on these boards, good and bad. And you know it.
Grow up, and start acting like an adult, instead of a spoiled brat who can't get his way.
I gave you two specific examples of your behavior in that post, and two in the previous post as well.
What, calling you "lawyerly" and "partisan" is pawning off my responsibility? Hardly, I gave you plenty of backup for both, deal with it. Those are your examples, they don't even make sense which is why I didn't address them before because I thought you were joking, or something. Believe me, you don't have the power, or the credibility, to force me to say anything, so you're off the hook for my posts. Breathe easier.
They don't even make sense? That's the sort of thing a hard-line partisan says.
""It's all up to you", remember? If I'm "honest", you won't be hostile. That depends solely on your definition of "honest", so you can always justify hostility."
"If I interject into a conversation, then you have every right to lob an insult at me. If I tell you to put up or shut up, then you can insult my mother."
I'm not sure how you missed the latter one in particular, since that's from the post you were responding to.
Oh, so if I'm not forcing you to do anything, then you act that way all on your own. Then it's not "all up to me" anymore.
So behave yourself, stop acting like a child and whining about being disrespected and you won't get what you deserve. I have no idea how I am shirking any responsibility, or blaming you. If I insult you, I said it, I am responsible. I have never said otherwise. Are you satisfied now?
"So behave yourself, stop acting like a child and whining about being disrespected and you won't get what you deserve" is exactly how you shirk your responsibility. That's remarkable. From one sentence to the other, you tell me that my actions dictate what you do, then you wonder how you're blaming me for your behavior.
Thank you for taking responsibility, in your own special way.
You've always said that you insult people who "deserve" it. Obviously that's not true. You've also said that dishonesty breeds hostility. But you haven't even claimed dishonesty on this thread, yet you have hostility. So there's nothing wrong with me pointing that out. You rationalize your behavior by blaming it on others, but here you had a glimmer of recognition that you were simply "out of line" all on your own.
"You rationalize your behavior by blaming it on others...."
Please explain?
After I asked you that question, you went on about how "lawyerly" I am, as if that meant anything or justified your behavior. Because you don't like the style (or something) of how I discuss things, that gives you carte blanc to do whatever you like. This is quite typical of your personality. "It's all up to you", remember? If I'm "honest", you won't be hostile. That depends solely on your definition of "honest", so you can always justify hostility.
This goes to your refusal to admit the possibilities of other motivations in highlighting Miss Coulter, in hopes of gaining some needed attention around here. Because worthless flamethrowers needn't be given the time of day by anyone other than media outlets who care only about ratings.
Nice try, but no. The point of this site is to point out conservative misinformation in the media. The very fact that conservative Ann Coulter is on a media outlet spewing misinformation is enough motivation for this site to cover her. I know she is a worthless flame thrower, you claim to know so as well, but the fact is that MMFA ignoring her will not make her any less detrimental to the political discourse. There are plenty of (dumb) people who would think that just because she is allowed on television and she is a published and bestselling authoress, it stands to reason that there is merit in what she has to say. It is MMFA's mission to let people know that this is not the case, and to provide examples as to why not.
If we are to use your reasoning that Ann Coulter is only being covered in the hopes of MMFA sharing some of her spotlight, then the same could be said everytime MMFA covers O'Reilly, Hannity and every other worthless flame-thrower who hosts a well-rated show.
Just to bring you up to speed, I have been quite consistent in saying over the years that covering worthless flamethrowers and their one-sided opinions is red meat for liberals here to stick it back to them a little, well take that, here's a little insult back at ya, thank you very much. And if that target manages to fan the flames and answer MMFA back, well free publicity never hurt anyone. You can't correct a flamethrowing provocateur, it's an exercise in futility.
What you can correct is conservative misinformation and facts put forth in the media which distorts or misinforms, that is important stuff and when this website does that, they do it very well, it's a much needed service and I applaud the effort.
Covering Ann Coulter's egomaniacal insults is not the same thing as covering some serious media story putting out a vital falsehood that impacts all of us.
Covering Ann Coulter's egomaniacal insults is not the same thing as covering some serious media story putting out a vital falsehood that impacts all of us.
But you see, that is the problem. There are plenty of people around who do not see her "egomaniacal insults" as such. She is a published author and syndicated columnist, and for some people, that is all they need to know to believe what someone like Coulter has to say. MMFA choosing not to cover her lunatic rants, as you would prefer, won't necessarily do much good. Or do you think that if MMFA ignores her, she will go away considering that she still gets invited to talkshows with a high viewership?
You can't correct a flamethrowing provocateur, it's an exercise in futility.
And who is trying to correct her? MMFA is pointing out her blatant lies for their patrons' benefits. I think MMFA knew beforehand that she wouldn't stop just because they called her out on her BS.
People that are fans of Ann Coulter aren't very likely to have their minds changed by any refutations of her opinions here. And if MMFA, as you say, knows she won't stop then I stand by why her words and opinions are put here in the first place.
It's their website, they do as they wish. They allow comments, so I comment. It's all good....
And if MMFA, as you say, knows she won't stop then I stand by why her words and opinions are put here in the first place.
If MMFA is to base their decision of posting an article on whether the target of the article will stop making fallacious arguments, then they would have been out of business ages ago. MMFA's mission is to inform the audience, not to "correct" the dolts in the MSM.
Fair enough
He explained that there have been liberal shows that do better that don't get the national exposure so that is evidence of an alternate reason. If it was strictly about money and ratings the liberal shows would get picked up.
You, however have shown no evidence that MMFA goes after Anne for any other reason than it is the mission statement. I mean are you really that biased against this site that you can't see the difference? The only other option would be that you are just that slow witted, but I don't think that is the case.
"Because traffic is down here and Ann has been relatively silent, with little attention given to her lately around here, hmm? That seems to coincide."
Again, documented history is completely at odds with your theory...
Max out the graph to August of 2007 and MMFA's traffic is still on an obvious downward trend. Also notable is the drop beginning in October of 2007, when MMFA was lit up with post after post about Skeletor and her new book, If Democrats had any brains... and the subsequent "liberal media" tour that followed. This was also the time that Skeletor was calling for the "perfection" of the Jews. And yet, during all this frenzy, MMFA's traffic DROPPED significantly.
Your theory still falls flat, miserably.
Tommy, maybe you didn't know this, but the only reason that Ol' Liar Ann was silent is because her jaw was wired shut. Quoting the words of Jay Leno, Ann Coulter with her jaw wired shut is "charming".
Second, if MMFA was ducking Coulter, then they wouldn't have commented on any of her hate and lies in her hate filled rants in print and in columnis in the first place, and neither you nor I nor any other poster here would even have a thread to be talking about. Next!
Snoopy, this article was just that.
MMFA looks silly in my opinion by trying to parse Coulter's statements in this failed attempt at a rebuttal.
No, the lady doth protest too much, methinks, etc. etc.
Parse?........... Parse? AA?
Its Ann Coulter..... what possible reason would MMfA have to attempt to parse anything that comes from this nasty slimy witch?
I realize that her entire career is a long running schtick in her own mind... but I seriously question her sanity... and MMfA need only to repeat her own words and she freaks out that they are seeing/exposing her for what she is....
A wacky doodle fraud that keeps whinning when people cancel her appearences that demands respect when she herself is one of the most disrespectful people on Earth!!
While I have yet to hear it yet... it would not suprise me in the least that Coultergiest spewed fake outrage toward Thom Hartmann when he decided not to have her on his radio show ealier today...
Besides... when loud mouths like Ann or BillO mention MMfA during interviews or show spots... it only gets a few more people to come in here and slowly begin to realize that it is people like Ann and Rush and BillO that lied to them.
Parse..... AA.... try again!
anotheramerican looks silly in my opinion by trying to parse MMFA's statements in his failed attempt at a comment.
Be honest, AA, did you get to be first in line by simply not reading the article?
He was the seventh caller.
Well, if Media Matters is so allegedly "silly", why would she even respond to their legitimate criticism of the dissemblies and lies in her latest lie and hate filled book in the first place?
You greatly diminish your effectiveness with this futile attempt to save face. It would have been best to leave Anne's reply alone. SHe clearly hits at over a dozen points and you only make a desperate attempt to reply to a couple - leaving everyone else with the (Correct) feeling that Media Matters got more wrong than did Ms Coulture!
She clearly hits a dozen points alrighty. Too bad they're all pointed in the wrong direction. Try reading the above article for clarification, instead of relying on your "feelings."
"Now Media Matters is accusing me of lying for believing what is printed in the New York Times.
When it's known lies that you're repeating, yes.
Can I please stop responding to these nuts now?"
Nobody's holding a gun to your head, but since all you seem to do is melt down further, and bury yourself in more lies, I think shutting that rancid hole in your face would be the rational thing to do, Annie.
But doing the rational thing wouldn't be like you, would it? Keep talking, wingnut queen! Suicide by stoopidity.
"Can I please stop responding to these nuts now?"
Gosh, that sure sounds like something one of those wussified liberal un-men would say. Not a bootstrap pulling, self-made paragon of logic and virtue like.....Ack, I can't even keep up with this anymore without making myself ill. Shame that Coulter has no such restraint.
It's pretty funny watching this nutcase try to survive with a little wider exposure than Fox. You get the feeling AC grew up with a doting daddy and groping private school teachers telling her how brilliant & precocious she was ?
It must be shattering for her to finally be hearing from those who don't need to coddle her. And worst of all, it's happening to her at an age when women who rely on their promiscuity find out even that doesn't have the value it once did.
I thought she was an alter boy?
An alter boy?
No self respecting priest would have her.
I'm sure any priest that takes alter boys aren't very self respecting! ;)
Snoopy, did you mean that Annie was an altered boy?? I'll buy that one.
Come on Republicans...this broad will keep you out of office for another twenty years if you allow her to continue.. DO SOMETHING!!!!!!
And her buddy Seannie the Sissy and his Conservatives-in-Exile..(CIE). I liked the first label he used...Conservative Underground Movement(_ _ _). I suppose someone alerted him of his idiocy and they changed it.
I do not see the brilliance, but I do see her sense of entitlement, her peevishness, her bad manners, and her intellectual laziness; all of which do suggest that she may have been insulated from competing views and overly indulged.
Just to be clear,Funnyguy, I wasn't implying that there has ever been anything brilliant about Coulter, I just get the feeling that she may have grown up as the type of spoiled below-average kid who's constantly told she's brilliant.
Believe me, I see the origins of these type of people in the more affluent suburbs of the area I'm in. Ever seen that show about the real housewives of Orange County? They're (fortunately) a small group, but they're not completely fictional.
As bad as Orange County is I'm pretty sure the creature grew up in New Canaan in Fairfield County, Connecticut. One of the wealthiest counties in the country.
My co-workers and I were stopped by the cops many times at night in the wealthy towns like New Canaan, Westport and Darien because we looked like we didn't belong
I've heard her father was a union busting lawyer.
Eh, it sounds like the same places, different coast, King. When I was out there swinging the ol' hammer, doing remodels,I had the cops called on me in broad daylight in several OC neighborhoods when I was just trying to work.
I admit it, I watch The Real Housewives of Orange County, when I can catch it. It's a nicely portrayed trainwreck. Oh, and it also makes me want to punch most of said housewives directly in the face.
Coulter really put out a book in 2009 that focused in any part on the debunked smears of a 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee?
Really? Couldn't get the goods on Obama's fake birth certificate or his killing of his grandmother in time? Maybe for the paperback....
It's quite sad that Ms. Coulter disgraces herself like this again...
I thank God we have an organization like Media Matters to hold her accountable.
Are you praising or defending MMFA??
MMFA has found their replacement for Jerome Corsi
Time to revisit the con queen-inspired limericks of yesteryear:
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:95249599; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:2069632528 -512751232 -1285402664 -1889001956 1562534888 1106014454 -198913350 -1605090356 928394338 712546108;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l1 {mso-list-id:136998291; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-334743962 610028824 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;} @list l1:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:-; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:1.0in; text-indent:-.25in; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l2 {mso-list-id:389042806; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:2065697790 -1877839704 1751551680 -252948460 1576947714 -774222412 1828099516 -920381338 1180623586 -1993542138;} @list l2:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l2:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l2:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l3 {mso-list-id:409159209; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-1922147326 1366729440 475964328 -447693400 1936868214 1584956878 -1516208220 1188336590 -745098768 -777386656;} @list l3:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l3:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l3:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l3:level4 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l3:level5 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l3:level6 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l3:level7 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l3:level8 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l3:level9 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l4 {mso-list-id:666858271; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:1884835798 801038806 -1883992130 -687728402 -826352570 472808698 -369598458 447362472 -226300910 541334912;} @list l4:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l4:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l5 {mso-list-id:1017924927; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:1708843516 -37184286 771524370 754634948 -1884150812 1368264744 178792924 1663200830 -902889934 2069146532;} @list l5:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l5:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l6 {mso-list-id:1407386805; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:2045270822 1467249024 -1440345066 -205618488 -821791464 -1690037338 1005482038 911371498 -1131232454 511885784;} @list l6:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l6:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l6:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l6:level4 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l6:level5 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l6:level6 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l6:level7 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l6:level8 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l6:level9 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l7 {mso-list-id:1519661495; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-313236356 -1987526950 1544871252 -1569260352 -111409820 1336289954 -299365672 1378671116 -1886327756 779616400;} @list l7:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l8 {mso-list-id:1580217457; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:717414934 108318120 840888072 -1791881736 905359330 526683012 -550756584 1209937852 -1895114666 492851168;} @list l8:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l8:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l8:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l8:level4 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l8:level5 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l8:level6 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l8:level7 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l9 {mso-list-id:2086292134; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-285572400 -335762854 -1283939902 68852420 -133160704 2090747572 -642106114 1385753658 -140329698 -617283656;} @list l9:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l9:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l9:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l9:level4 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l9:level5 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} -->
· There was a bag of bones, Annie
Who pulled her thoughts from her fanny
Garbage cans must be mad
That her stink is so bad
Her likeness to sewage uncanny
juliajayne / Friday August 24, 2007 08:47:05 PM EST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mild mannered fellow named Alan
Teamed up with Sean "always-be-yellin'"
'Sted of reasoned discourse
They have Coulter the coarse
Alan can't stop the lies she is tellin.'
- mary59 / Saturday August 25, 2007 10:50:37 AM EST
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Coultergeist Ann is a fright
A ghostly apparition so slight
Her bones are a creakin'
Her eyeballs are freakin'
She's the Annorexria of the right
I don't know about the rich part, but you can be too skinny. Dang, this broad looks as awful as she sounds. She apparently regurgitates more than right wing pathology.
juliajayne / Saturday August 25, 2007 07:23:53 PM EST ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, you are so funny! You already had me with the sewage uncanny...thanks JJ
- mary59 / Saturday August 25, 2007 08:29:52 PM EST
Now don't encourage me, Mary. There's really nothing to say about this icky person, so the limerick is the only device I have to comment on her strangeness, How 'bout another from you?
Old Ann is as strange as strange can
Some people think she's a man
She isn't too bright
Her writings are trite
On her black dress, there should be a ban
- juliajayne / Saturday August 25, 2007 11:27:17 PM EST
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Sean and Bag-of-Bones Coulter are tools,
spouting bogus death stories like gouls
They continue their pile
of preposterous bile
For their fan base of gullible fools.
- mary59 / Sunday August 26, 2007 12:59:59 AM EST
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean is in love with the Gipper
And Ann's an incompetent quipper
He's a thick lout
and when she sticks her tongue out
Annie looks just like a zipper
HuntingtonBeachLefty / Sunday August 26, 2007 04:34:38 AM EST
"Win one for the gipper," cried Sean,
Ann the zipper droned phonily on--
someone's dead? blame 'ole Hil
Bad war news? Get more shrill
Forget dubya and cheney's Big Con.
- mary59 / Sunday August 26, 2007 11:32:09 AM EST
- -------------------------------------------------------------
John Edwards is such a sissy
Ann proclaimed while having a hissy
But the Edwards' are right
Ann's as black as the night
She-devil's too nice for this missy
- juliajayne / Sunday August 26, 2007 02:56:12 PM EST
Yes, pithy is a good word, needing to distill and be concise is hard. But Ann is just so much fun to limerickize:
Annie doth protest too much
She considers Bill Clinton nonesuch
Her breasts fairly heave
As Bill's picture she cleaves
To her chest in a breathless clutch
- juliajayne / Sunday August 26, 2007 06:27:57 PM EST
- -------------------------------------------------
- I'm late to this party of rhyme,
-
- but Annie? She's hardly sublime.
If it's pithy you want
It's not Ann you should taunt
Just watch sean pith on truth all the time.
neondesert / Sunday August 26, 2007 11:26:21 PM EST
oops sorry for that gibberish on top. Just re-posting some fond thoughts of A.C.
Let's get this party started!
Annie's got a mouth
Annie's got a mouth
Her whole schtick's goin' south
From shooting off that foul mouth
What did her sponsors do?
What did they put you through?
They say when Annie was arrested
They wired her huge mouthy yap shut
But man, they let her back out
Now that Annie's got her yap out
She ain't never gonna be the same
Annie's got a mouth
Annie's got a mouth
Her appearances are goin' soutnn
Now everybody knows her mouth
Tell her now it's untrue
How the hag misled you?
They gave her too much airtime
Fox news has got to be insane
They say the spell that they were under
The ratings and the plunder
Meant that someone had to stop the pain
Run away, run away from the hag
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Run away, run away from the hag
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Run away, run away, run, run away
Thank ewe thank ewe, I'm here till friday!
Excellent! When does our book get published? Can we get on the Today program? ;-)
oops sorry for that gibberish on top.
Sorry? Why Mary? I thought it was best part....just kidding;-)
While all of those limericks were good, those by Miz Julia were my favorites...& no it's not just because she's my sweetheart ;-)
Thanks Mary, I enjoyed those.
What er yoou talking? I love that kind of stuff. Only next time put it in blue so's I can click it.
The bag of bones's at it again
Girl doesn't know when to say when
She's coloassally boring
With her media whoring
Good God, Anne, just put down the pen!
Oh Mary, that was a nice blast from the past. Thanks so much. That was back when this place was a tad more fun. Ah, remember the old days?! :-0) Good times!
Ann gets gawd awful reviews
All her footnotes and pen she should loose
Newsmax lets her further her vile
heap of lies, bilge and bile
Down the sewage canal she should cruise.
----------------------------------------------
Thanks Jeter: & jj, you always liven things up. If you're around Friday evening, I'll try to show up too...
Thanks Jeter: & jj, you always liven things up. If you're around Friday evening, I'll try to show up too...
Hey Missy, nice of you to say. J2 and JJ haven't been around much because we thought maybe our mutual goo goo eyes were giving everybody the diabetes...Ha! :-0) Or boring them to death. :-0)
I'd love to get on here Friday and throw down some more limericks though. Might see ya then, GF. I've missed you.
I do think that the Corsi comparison is valid. Coulter just gets more airtime because she uses sexuality as a way to grab attention as well as her off-the-charts prodding of liberals.
It should be said, I think, that anyone who writes a book with sources that include blogs, Weekly Standard, WorldDotNet or Washington Times is clearly just a tool for their own echo chamber audience.
So why spend another minute with Coulter & Corsi, et. al? They are only trying to spin us up because they believe (with good reason) that the left is weak, meek and caves in to their bully tactics.
Really, though, how does one market popularity among the skeletotransvestophile demographic? I just feel like there's got to be something more there.
Would everybody just STOP talking about her "sexuality". Just the thought makes my skin crawl....ugh! I'll bet she doesn't have to use a strap-on when she's with her girlfriends.
Yeah, but a woman her age flopping that bleached hair around and wearing cheesy cocktail dresses?
More eeewww than sexy.
You both asked and answered your question here. Media Matters does it, and should do it, becuase the best way to defeat disinformation and manipulative inflammatory nonsense is to calmly expose the falshoods and illogic to the light of day.
Sooner or later they will get the message that, every time they spout some rubbish, a respected source will have called them on it. It will be on the public record, forever. The more they speak evil, the more their own words come to haunt them. Petard, meet hoist.
Coulter lies like a rug ;-)
Just say No to rugs.
IGNORE THIS WOMAN, She has zero to offer the world, MM is just adding fuel to the flame. Please stop waisting space. I vote NOT to comment on any article she is mentioned.
Shes promoting her book and the fact she mentions Media Matters means she's playing it. Just seems like she's a little dated. And I don't mean just the black dress in the morning...She missed the election, or DID SHE? The "single mother" rant would be amusing in light of Bristol. I already heard her backtrack on that.
Does anyone remember when in 2006 Ann Coulter said that if Democrats didn't make historic gains, they would "go away as a party"? Well, I guess if 59 votes in the Senate is "gone" to Ann, she was right. Not to mention huge margins in the House.
I think that if Ann Coulter is responding to Media Matters, then Media Matters has definitely gained even more legitimacy and fame in the news world. Good for MMFA. Now officially bothering Ann Coulter, and that's saying a lot! You've come a long way since I've joined you in the fall of 2006, in my freshman year in college, when i finally declared myself "liberal".
Her bit about SBVT "not having to retract" anything is sheer dishonesty. The fact that they were shameless in their lying does not equal accuracy or truthfulness.
If they'd had the least bit of decency or integrity, they SHOULD have retracted - at the least - every claim that was disproven, and apologized. But they had neither, and obviously AC doesn't either.
High standards there, girlfriend.
Go away you lanky bitch.
my wife had the opportunity, for the first time, so see ms. coulter on tv this morning. bear in mind, she (my wife) doesn't have the (unfortunate) familiarity with ms. coulter that i do. my wife's unsolicited reaction to ms. coulter? "she's nuts!"
on a positive note, ms. coulter, by contrast, makes maureen dowd seem almost sane. i said almost!
Is she trying to drive people to the left? If so, it seems to be working. Even my Republican friends think she's nuts.
Ms. Coulter will be on KDKA radio in Pittsburgh between the hours of 1-2pm. Although it is cold with gray skies, our hearts will be warm in welcoming this journalist to our city. Naturally, the host is a conservative who says he is an independent. Works both ways, she sells or tries to sell her book and the station gets hype. I wonder if Quinn and Rose had her on also.
It is after 1pm. I feel warmth, truth and honestly hovering over Pittsburgh. Thanx Ann.
Of course you are confused Tommy. I mean if you actually read for meaning it would help, but alas you just want to score points rather than pay attention. MM DOES care about how many people come to this site. I mean duh! Why put all this up if you don't want people to read it. Oh and what is the mission of MMFA? I know you know it mister WITH! Think think think... OH Yeah! It to point out CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION. If only this article had anything to do with that... oh wait it does!
So if you are going to have a site about conservative misinformation would you ignore Coulter, a best selling author? Heck no! And not just to get more people to visit MMFA, but because it's WHY PEOPLE COME TO THIS FRIKKIN SITE! Please buy a clue.
Hey MediaMatters...just got you a plug on KDKA thru the instant messaging which the host read on the air...Do I get a star??
anotheramerican -- you don't appear to understand the meaning of "parse." Her statements have clearly been proven lies -- big, fat. juicy ones.
HOWLING over "Medea Matters!" But of course Ann is childless. And unmarried. Why does Ann hate children and marriage? I think as a "BLONDE" she should try a red dress now and then. Mix it up, sweetie. You're on the red carpet!
"Now Media Matters is accusing me of lying for believing what is printed in the New York Times. Can I please stop responding to these nuts now?"
Coulter publishes a lie and when called on it blames someone else. I thought her big "schtick" was how well footnoted her books were. Why are MMFA "nuts" - because they caught her in yet another blatant falsehood?