Lol Ann Coulter Gets Caught In A Lie

[Hassan]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY&feature=channel"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY...feature=channel[/url]

[Resurrexi]

I take it that you don't like Ann Coulter.

[goldenchild17]

ouch. I generally enjoy (not always agree) but like what she has to say and didn't do too bad trying to get out of that one. But yeah, pwned

[Hassan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1932337' date='Jul 26 2009, 05:56 AM']I take it that you don't like Ann Coulter.

[/quote]

I'm not a fan


Of course I don't really care for Franken either.

I read his book "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Liar...."


The title was so funny I thought the book would be a giant bit of wonderful political satire.


I thought wrong

[Jesus_lol]

hahahah, oh SNAP!

[reelguy227]

Hassan, you needed to point this out why, do you have a vendetta against Ann Coulter or something? Seriously, I'm just wondering. First you would have enjoyed seeing her punched in the face, and now this? I'm not defending Ann's actions or anything, but it just gets old. No offense, but give it a rest, please.

Edited July 26, 2009 by reelguy227

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932422' date='Jul 26 2009, 12:20 PM']Hassan, you needed to point this out why, do you have a vendetta against Ann Coulter or something? Seriously, I'm just wondering. First you would have enjoyed seeing her punched in the face, and now this? I'm not defending Ann's actions or anything, but it just gets old. No offense, but give it a rest, please.[/quote]
I guess I have a thing about lying racists.

I said I would not have enjoyed seeing her punched in the face. But upon hearing of it I did find it funny and felt she just deserved what she got.

So yes. If you are demagogic racist who makes your living witting vile, lie filled propaganda to stir the prejudices of gullible people and you get punched in the face I'll have to say you got what was coming to you.

Now as to a vendetta. No. I'm not sure I ever discussed her before that thread. In this case I happened to run across the video while looking up. I found it funny so I posted it.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1932408' date='Jul 26 2009, 11:32 AM']hahahah, oh SNAP![/quote]


I really enjoyed her trying to then explain it with the racist tangent.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932342' date='Jul 26 2009, 06:09 AM']I'm not a fan


Of course I don't really care for Franken either.

I read his book "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Liar...."


The title was so funny I thought the book would be a giant bit of wonderful political satire.


I thought wrong [/quote]

I believe the book to which you're referring is "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot". His only other flop with the word "liar" in the title is "Lies: and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". Someone should let him know before he writes his next one to not let a five-year-old come up with the title.

I find it ironic and somewhat hilarious that a guy who couldn't even keep his own radio show afloat (because people don't want to listen to a liberal blowhard for ten minutes, much less for more than two hours) while Rush has been on the radio for 20 years and has had more listeners than any other talk radio show host.

Edited July 26, 2009 by iheartjp2

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1932541' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:03 PM']I believe the book to which you're referring is "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot". His only other flop with the word "liar" in the title is "Lies: and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". Someone should let him know before he writes his next one to not let a five-year-old come up with the title. [/quote]

The titles were clever. They were a satire of the moronic and hyperbolic titles one often sees on, for example, Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity books.


[quote]I find it ironic and somewhat hilarious that a guy who couldn't even keep his own radio show afloat (because people don't want to listen to a liberal blowhard for ten minutes, much less for more than two hours) while Rush has been on the radio for 20 years and has had more listeners than any other talk radio show host. [/quote]

That a guy who couldn't .....what? You don't finish any thought there.

You are a big Ann fan yes? What do you think of the fact that she apparently thinks so little of her fans that she will blatantly lie to them? I mean it seems like such a masochistic relationship.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932548' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:12 PM']The titles were clever. They were a satire of the moronic and hyperbolic titles one often sees on, for example, Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity books.




That a guy who couldn't .....what? You don't finish any thought there.

You are a big Ann fan yes? What do you think of the fact that she apparently thinks so little of her fans that she will blatantly lie to them? I mean it seems like such a masochistic relationship.[/quote]

Oops.

Lemme restate that with the [i]rest[/i] of my thought.

I find it ironic and somewhat hilarious that a guy who couldn't even keep his own radio show afloat (because people don't want to listen to a liberal blowhard for ten minutes, much less for more than two hours) [u]calls Rush an idiot[/u] while [u]he's[/u] has been on the radio for 20 years and has had more listeners than any other talk radio show host.

That better?

And as for Al's titles, you actually find them [i]clever[/i]?? Seriously, are you being honest when you say this?

The first is a blatent [i]ad hominem[/i] directed at one man in particular. At least in Ann's first NYT best-seller "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", what came after was "[:] The Case Against Bill Clinton", not "Bill Clinton is a Fat, Unattractive Sleezeball".

The second, I'm being ingenuous when I say this, a five-year-old could have come up with.

Edited July 26, 2009 by iheartjp2

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1932552' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:19 PM']Oops.

Lemme restate that with the [i]rest[/i] of my thought.

I find it ironic and somewhat hilarious that a guy who couldn't even keep his own radio show afloat (because people don't want to listen to a liberal blowhard for ten minutes, much less for more than two hours) [u]calls Rush an idiot[/u] while [u]he's[/u] has been on the radio for 20 years and has had more listeners than any other talk radio show host.

That better?[/quote]

Yeah. Franken. Not particularly funny, not particularly profound, not a very gifted orator. No argument there.


How about Ann though? I mean I'm being a bit facetious but I really am curious. You're a big Ann Coulter fan. You promote her and her website here. Does it bother you that she lies to her fans? I mean is it really inconsequential to you that she blatantly tried to manipulate and deceive her audience?

[Deus te Amat]

I think she's right.

I mean, Franken didn't read the whole article... he just briefly quoted one instance where the words taken from her book were used. He didn't cite the entire context.

Christians do the same thing with the Bible. They misinterpret entire sections because they only cite a certain part, not in context.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Deus_te_Amat' post='1932556' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:24 PM']I think she's right.

I mean, Franken didn't read the whole article... he just briefly quoted one instance where the words taken from her book were used. He didn't cite the entire context.

Christians do the same thing with the Bible. They misinterpret entire sections because they only cite a certain part, not in context.[/quote]


Exactly what context could make her use of that use of quote anything other than manipulative?

He did read about a paragraph around it. She clearly used it totally out of context. He was jokingly pointing out that naked flights would both allow security personnel to spot anyone with a box cutter and deter all religious fundamentalists of all stripes, including Muslim fundamentalists. She twisted that completely out of context and claimed he was blaming Muslim terrorism on religious fundamentalists of all sorts.

I'm sorry. We are both college students. If either of us pulled that in a research paper we'd at the very least be severely punished if not expelled.

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932558' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:30 PM']Exactly what context could make her use of that use of quote anything other than manipulative?

He did read about a paragraph around it. She clearly used it totally out of context. He was jokingly pointing out that naked flights would both allow security personnel to spot anyone with a box cutter and deter all religious fundamentalists of all stripes, including Muslim fundamentalists. She twisted that completely out of context and claimed he was blaming Muslim terrorism on religious fundamentalists of all sorts.

I'm sorry. We are both college students. If either of us pulled that in a research paper we'd at the very least be severely punished if not expelled.[/quote]


I can see it from both points of view.

[iheartjp2]

Ann is right. She used a name that the article writer used in his article for terrorists and made a point summing up the guy's article. She didn't [i]lie[/i] about anything. Al took two solitudinous sentences and tried to make up some bs concerning misquoting (which isn't what she did).

Also, speaking of liars, I highly doubt that Al turned to that exact page and came up with that exact talking point in the time that it took his wife to put on lipstick.

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1932565' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:41 PM']Ann is right. She used a name that the article writer used in his article for terrorists and made a point summing up the guy's article. She didn't [i]lie[/i] about anything. Al took two solitudinous sentences and tried to make up some bs concerning misquoting (which isn't what she did).

Also, speaking of liars, I highly doubt that Al turned to that exact page and came up with that exact talking point in the time that it took his wife to put on lipstick.[/quote]



Agreed, I found that point absurd. I liked it when she said she had a watch because she knew he was bsing.

[Hassan]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1932565' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:41 PM']Ann is right. She used a name that the article writer used in his article for terrorists and made a point summing up the guy's article. She didn't [i]lie[/i] about anything. Al took two solitudinous sentences and tried to make up some bs concerning misquoting (which isn't what she did).[/quote]

What in the world are you talking about.

[quote]Also, speaking of liars, I highly doubt that Al turned to that exact page and came up with that exact talking point in the time that it took his wife to put on lipstick.[/quote]

Yeah. He's also at best a second rate comedian and a third rate author. I don't know why you keep trying to make this about Al Franken. I don't care for him either.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
moving to the debate table

[Hassan]

Here's the article.

Here is all the context one needs.

I would appreciate any Ann defender to show me how her use of the quote (bolded) was anything other than outright manipulation.


[i]Naked Air
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: Wednesday, December 26, 2001

In the wake of the attempted bombing last week of the American Airlines flight from Paris by a terrorist nut with explosives in his shoe, I'm thinking of starting my own airline, which would be called: Naked Air. Its motto would be: ''Everybody flies naked and nobody worries.'' Or ''Naked Air -- where the only thing you wear is a seat belt.''

Think about it. If everybody flew naked, not only would you never have to worry about the passenger next to you carrying box cutters or exploding shoes, but no [b]religious fundamentalists of any stripe[/b] would ever be caught dead flying nude, or in the presence of nude women, and that alone would keep many potential hijackers out of the skies. It's much more civilized than racial profiling. And I'm sure that it wouldn't be long before airlines would be offering free dry-cleaning for your clothes while you fly.

Well, you get the point: if the terrorists are just going to keep using technology to become better and better, how do we protect against that, while maintaining an open society -- without stripping everyone naked? I mean, what good is it to have a free and open America when someone can easily get on an airplane in Paris and bring a bomb over in the heel of his shoe or plot a suicide attack on the World Trade Center from a cave in Kandahar and then pop over and carry it out?

This is America's core problem today: A free society is based on openness and on certain shared ethics and honor codes to maintain order, and we are now intimately connected to too many societies that do not have governments that can maintain order and to peoples who have no respect for our ethics or our honor codes.

Remember the electronic ticket machines that were used for the Boston-New York-Washington shuttles? Ever use one? Not only were you automatically issued your ticket with a credit card by pressing a touch-screen, but they asked you -- electronically -- ''Did you pack your bags yourself?'' and ''Did any strangers give you anything?'' And you answered those security questions by touching a screen! Think about the naïve trust and honor code underlying those machines.

If I had my way they would now take all those machines and put them in a special room in the Smithsonian museum called: ''Artifacts From America Before Sept. 11, 2001.''

We're not alone. I just flew in and out of Moscow, where you now have to fill out a detailed customs form. It asks the usual questions: Are you carrying any fruits, plants, large amounts of foreign currency, special electronics or weapons? But there was one box that unnerved me a bit. It asked: Are you carrying any ''radioactive materials?'' Hmm, I wondered, how many people (i.e. smugglers) are going to check that box? Can you imagine going through Moscow customs and the couple in front of you turning to each other and asking: ''Dear, did we pack the nuclear waste in your suitcase or mine?'' Or, ''Honey, is the plutonium in your purse or the black duffel?'' I don't think so.

Which is why we are entering a highly problematic era, one that we are just beginning to get our minds around. We are becoming much more keenly aware of how freedom and order go together (see the Ashcroft debates). For America to stay America, a free and open society, intimately connected to the world, the world has to become a much more ordered and controlled place. And order emerges in two ways: It is either grown from the bottom up, by societies slowly developing good democratic governance and shared ethics and values, or it is imposed from the top down, by non-democratic, authoritarian regimes rigidly controlling their people.

But in today's post-cold-war world, many, many countries to which we are connected are in a transition between the two -- between a rigid authoritarian order that was imposed and voluntary self-government that is being home-grown. It makes for a very messy world, especially as some countries -- Afghanistan being the most extreme example -- are not able to make the transition.

''The problem with top-down control is that more governments around the world are fragmenting today, rather than consolidating,'' said the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi. ''At the same time, America's technologies are being universalized -- planes that go faster and faster and electronics that are smaller and smaller -- but the American values and honor system that those technologies assume have not been universalized. In the hands of the wrong people they become weapons of mass destruction.''

So there you have our dilemma: Either we become less open as a society, or the world to which we are now so connected has to become more controlled -- by us and by others -- or we simply learn to live with much higher levels of risk than we've ever been used to before.

Or, we all fly naked.[/i]