ann coulter = micheal moore

[Gambino]

anyone who can't agree to that is either a liberal-pinko-commie treasonus piece of shit or a right wing baby slaying old woman-raping capitlist pig

 

[bluepeter]

roflmao

 

[Gambino]

roflmao

put your name behind this peter, prove to me you apply your logic to both sides of the coin

 

[mrplunkey]

I'd agree with that. They are both people who sensationalize issues to drive sales of their media.

 

[Gambino]

I'd agree with that. They are both people who sensationalize issues to drive sales of their media.

not sure if you were a member here when farinheight 9/11 came out, but the same peeps who are bashing ann are the same peeps that were riding moore's shorty cack

 

[mrplunkey]

not sure if you were a member here when farinheight 9/11 came out, but the same peeps who are bashing ann are the same peeps that were riding moore's shorty cack

Oh, I remember that garbage.

The funny think I remember about Moore was how anti-gun he was in "Bowling for Columbine" then one of his security guards got busted for packing heat while he was protecting Moore.

The irony was great.

 

[Gambino]

Oh, I remember that garbage.

The funny think I remember about Moore was how anti-gun he was in "Bowling for Columbine" then one of his security guards got busted for packing heat while he was protecting Moore.

The irony was great.

outside politics moore is a pretty good guy...he's got a house in the same area as i, and the community likes him, both cons and lib.
he's good for the area, promotes bussiness etc.
he's entitled to his opinion, even if it sucks.
and because i'm curious, I'll proly read ann's book and watch
"sicko" like i watched all his movies loolo
thus they have acheived what they set out to do

 

[mrplunkey]

I liked "Canadian Bacon" because it was a social parity that made fun of real issues. That's what I like about Mind of Mancia and Chapelle's show too. The issues are real, but by couching them in humor you're really making fun of the people who buy into the ideas. If it takes being ostracized and embarassed to change steriotypical views then so be it.

 

[bluepeter]

put your name behind this peter, prove to me you apply your logic to both sides of the coin

I'm right with you. No disagreement here.

 

[Gambino]

I'm right with you. No disagreement here.

 

[eat big]

Michael Moore is much sexier than Anne.

 

[Gambino]

Michael Moore is much sexier than Anne.

I'd so bang ann

 

[eat big]

I'd so bang ann

I'd bang her if it was a snuff film.

 

[Phenom78]

I wouldn't compare those two.

Ann is a flame thrower, but shes bright and largely truthful.

Mike Moore is just full of shit. There is no truth as far as he's concerned. The agenda shapes the facts.

 

[EnderJE]

I wouldn't compare those two.

Ann is a flame thrower, but shes bright and largely truthful.

Mike Moore is just full of shit. There is no truth as far as he's concerned. The agenda shapes the facts.

rofl

 

[Phenom78]

rofl

Why?

Feel free to document otherwise.

I'm not claiming she's George Washington. One might even claim its a function of practicality, as she would receive no where near the same level of non critical analysis that Moore's work is routinely subjected to in the media.

She employs hyperbole and personal attacks. She also reaches conclusions that one could argue are unfounded. But Im not aware of any intentional misrepresentation of the facts on her part ala Moore. She isn't for example being sued by wounded war vets for misrepresenting their statements by applying the answers to different questions than were actually asked.

 

[newbie210]

I'd bang her if it was a snuff film.

that's awesome....me too

 

[chefbone]

In because I agree.

 

[bluepeter]

I wouldn't compare those two.

Ann is a flame thrower, but shes bright and largely truthful.

Mike Moore is just full of shit. There is no truth as far as he's concerned. The agenda shapes the facts.

lmao

See what I mean Gambino?

 

[Phenom78]

lmao

See what I mean Gambino?

Now if you were a conservative, translated critical thinker, you would have provided some evidence to establish yourself and perhapes even make a point.

Because you not, you submit to the world is whatever I say it is philosophy and therefore get caught up in discussions beyond your depth.

But feel free to prove me wrong by providing some actual substance to your statements

 

[bluepeter]

Now if you were a conservative, translated critical thinker, you would have provided some evidence to establish yourself and perhapes even make a point.

Because you not, you submit to the world is whatever I say it is philosophy and therefore get caught up in discussions beyond your depth.

But feel free to prove me wrong by providing some actual substance to your statements

Thanks for strengthening my point. Kudos.

 

[Phenom78]

Thanks for strengthening my point. Kudos.

\
translation: Im speaking above my depth once more, therefore let me pretend to be above it all while simultaneously remaining oblivious to the irony of me responding with nothing but misplaced sarcasm as well.

 

[The Shadow]

anyone who can't agree to that is either a liberal-pinko-commie treasonus piece of shit or a right wing baby slaying old woman-raping capitlist pig

I posted something similar a while back......


Opposite sides of the same coin

 

[Phenom78]

I posted something similar a while back......


Opposite sides of the same coin

That addresses the flame throwing but not the substance.

There really isnt a successful liberal author to compare her too accurately. But shes more like a Baglia on the liberal side. Annoying and insulting to the opposition, but not a liar. You can disagree with either of their conclusions, but while selective in their respective arguments Ive not known either to make up facts as does Moore.

 

[bluepeter]

\
translation: Im speaking above my depth once more, therefore let me pretend to be above it all while simultaneously remaining oblivious to the irony of me responding with nothing but misplaced sarcasm as well.

Do you expect me to waste my time typing out a condescending, belittling 10 paragraphs refuting your points and insinuating you're an idiot?

You can disagree with my ideology all you like but do everyone a favour and shutup with the adolescent attempts to make everyone that doesn't agree with you seem as if they are not on par with your dizzying intellect.

:barf:

 

[The Shadow]

That addresses the flame throwing but not the substance.

There really isnt a successful liberal author to compare her too accurately. But shes more like a Baglia on the liberal side. Annoying and insulting to the opposition, but not a liar. You can disagree with either of their conclusions, but while selective in their respective arguments Ive not known either to make up facts as does Moore.

LOL


Actually the compasison I made was Al Franken

 

[Phenom78]

Do you expect me to waste my time typing out a condescending, belittling 10 paragraphs refuting your points and insinuating you're an idiot?

You can disagree with my ideology all you like but do everyone a favour and shutup with the adolescent attempts to make everyone that doesn't agree with you seem as if they are not on par with your dizzying intellect.

:barf:

How clueless are you?

Honestly?

Go back and read this exchange. I made a post expressing a sincere opinion. You in turn responded with nothing but sarcasm. Ive given you multiple opportunities to clarify your statement and to substantiate your disagreement.

But in typical fashion you turn yourself into the victim, and claim Im the one belittling your idealogy.

Honestly I dont mind insults. I do mind that you and a few other prove incapable thread after thread of even following what you yourselves have written. Its dazzling. You prove incapable of following a written discussion on a single thread.

 

[Phenom78]

LOL


Actually the compasison I made was Al Franken

Nah

Franken is routinely full of shit. He lies regularly.

I'm not tarring every liberal commentator as him. But he and more are beyond the pale. I honestly can't think of anyone on the republican side that could compete with them vis a vis dishonesty.

That's not to say they dont have their own problems. Rush can be simplistic. And he employs the age old tar an entire group with their weakest link strategy. He, Hannity, and a number of other conservative commentators do that regularly. So does the left.

 

[bluepeter]

How clueless are you?

Honestly?

Go back and read this exchange. I made a post expressing a sincere opinion. You in turn responded with nothing but sarcasm. Ive given you multiple opportunities to clarify your statement and to substantiate your disagreement.

But in typical fashion you turn yourself into the victim, and claim Im the one belittling your idealogy.

Honestly I dont mind insults. I do mind that you and a few other prove incapable thread after thread of even following what you yourselves have written. Its dazzling. You prove incapable of following a written discussion on a single thread.

The only thing typical about this exchange is your continued valiant attempts to validate your banal existence by denigrating anyone that doesn't agree with you.

You think I need to substantiate my 'disagreement'? Who cares. Anyone not wiping their own ass with whatever passes for the Conservative flag could admit your characterization of Coulter is complete and utter horseshit. I don't have the time or the inclination to tell you why I think so because you'll just respond with your standard liberal commie insults and we can swing round on the merry-go-round again. How inviting that sounds.

As to turning myself into the victim, el-oh-el. Must be you flattering your own ego again pretending I actually give a flying fuck as to what you think.

Now I know your enormous ego doesn't allow you to leave a thread until you get the last word in so you do that and make sure to have fun with the asinine little liberal comments and adolescent insults. Those of us with a life won't be around to read it.

 

[Phenom78]

LOL


You try and try to help them make sense.

Ok Blue lol

 

[dullboy]

The only thing typical about this exchange is your continued valiant attempts to validate your banal existence by denigrating anyone that doesn't agree with you.

for someone who seems to loathe flourishing rhetoric, you really seem to embace it. lol

valiant and banal in one sentence is too much cake for dullboy.

oh, jeez.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Why?

Feel free to document otherwise.

I'm not claiming she's George Washington. One might even claim its a function of practicality, as she would receive no where near the same level of non critical analysis that Moore's work is routinely subjected to in the media.

She employs hyperbole and personal attacks. She also reaches conclusions that one could argue are unfounded. But Im not aware of any intentional misrepresentation of the facts on her part ala Moore. She isn't for example being sued by wounded war vets for misrepresenting their statements by applying the answers to different questions than were actually asked.

Ann Coulter is grossly over the top. She does lie a bit though. And to me whenever she slanders liberals that is a lie. If she says Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children. that is more of a lie than slander as democrats don't necessarily want women to behave like pigs and prance around naked. However even aside from slanderous lies she also makes factual errors.

http://slannder.homestead.com/files/slanndermain.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504180001

The number of articles the New York Times printed about "Selma" over a six-year period;

The frequency of the Times' use of the phrase "moderate Republican" vs. that of "liberal Republican"; and

Former Vice President Al Gore's claim to have been the inspiration for the book Love Story.

Likewise, a quick look at just the first three of 11 pages of search results for "Coulter" at Media Matters finds examples of Coulter lying or being wrong about:

The New York Times "outing" gays (the people mentioned in the article in question were already "out") and ignoring former atheist William Murray's conversion to Christianity (the paper didn't ignore it; it covered it.)

Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry supposedly running for president "under invented names" (they didn't);

The Bush administration's refusal to reimburse the District of Columbia for costs incurred during Bush's inauguration;

Long-discredited allegations that President Clinton "sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery."

 

[Phenom78]

Ann Coulter is grossly over the top. She does lie a bit though. And to me whenever she slanders liberals that is a lie. If she says Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children. that is more of a lie than slander as democrats don't necessarily want women to behave like pigs and prance around naked. However even aside from slanderous lies she also makes factual errors.

http://slannder.homestead.com/files/slanndermain.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504180001

The number of articles the New York Times printed about "Selma" over a six-year period;

The frequency of the Times' use of the phrase "moderate Republican" vs. that of "liberal Republican"; and

Former Vice President Al Gore's claim to have been the inspiration for the book Love Story.

Likewise, a quick look at just the first three of 11 pages of search results for "Coulter" at Media Matters finds examples of Coulter lying or being wrong about:

The New York Times "outing" gays (the people mentioned in the article in question were already "out") and ignoring former atheist William Murray's conversion to Christianity (the paper didn't ignore it; it covered it.)

Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry supposedly running for president "under invented names" (they didn't);

The Bush administration's refusal to reimburse the District of Columbia for costs incurred during Bush's inauguration;

Long-discredited allegations that President Clinton "sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery."

Ok, as an act of good faith I have gone through the list trying to find the basis for your claims. I suggest the following.

These particular web sites appear devoted to establishing lies of Ann Coulter. I don't take issue with that, but I suggest you consider the following. Despite the best efforts of what appears to be a number of different people, they appear at a loss to establish any pattern of actual lying. Which is why we are left with the following type of entries.

" The NYT, by endorsing liberal presidential candidates, has gone for over 25 years without endorsing the winner of the majority of the popular vote.FACT. In the last three Presidential elections (i.e. since 1989, 13 years, over half of Coulter's alleged dry spell), the NYT has endorsed the winner of the popular vote, although third-party spoilers did prevent the winner to have an absolute majority. "

Where is the lie? What I read is an excuse as to why Clinton didnt win the majority of the popular vote (ie third party candidates) and not a sensical claim that she lied, which obviously she didnt. Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote, never mind 50%+1

To address the ones you mentioned.

1)Selma. She stated in a sort of hyperbole fashion that the times ran 100+ articles on Selma. Its a rhetorical advice in my estimation ie telling your gf she already reminded you 100 times already, when in fact the number was less. In this particular case the actual number, by the sites own admission (assuming they are genuine) was 70. So if she was exxagerating it wasnt by much.

2(Al Gore and Love Story. She was correct. They acknowledge he said it and it was in error. They call her a liar because Al Gore made the claim on something he read in the Tennessean which was itself factually incorrect.

LOL

This is what I mean broly. Here is there reasoning, Al Gore makes a factually incorrect statement based on something (after the lie is outed) he claims to have read in the Tennessean. Coulter mocks him for the statement, and now shes the liar? Not the guy who made the statement? WTF?

 

[mrplunkey]

Ann Coulter is grossly over the top. She does lie a bit though. And to me whenever she slanders liberals that is a lie. If she says Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children. that is more of a lie than slander as democrats don't necessarily want women to behave like pigs and prance around naked. However even aside from slanderous lies she also makes factual errors."

Calling anyone out over a staement like that is simply ridiculous.

Let's help you with this one...

Definition: Embellishment

1) [noun] elaboration of an interpretation by the use of decorative (sometimes fictitious) detail; "the mystery has been heightened by many embellishments in subsequent retellings"
Synonyms: embroidery

2) [noun] a superfluous ornament


3) [noun] the act of adding extraneous decorations to something
Synonyms: ornamentation

Definition: Hyperbole:

1) [noun] extravagant exaggeration
Synonyms: exaggeration



These are commonly-used literary constructs that appear in many aspects of everyday life. Here's more!

When someone says "I could have killed him", they probably don't mean they were contemplating the actual murder of the person mentioned.

When someone says "My dick was as hard as steel", it probably wasn't actually as hard as steel (except mine, which really is).

If someone says "I could eat a horse!" they probably couldn't actually ingest and digest a complete horse.

When someone says "He is full of shit", the person probably doesn't actually believe the other person is completely full of excriment.

HTH

 

[Lao Tzu]

Calling anyone out over a staement like that is simply ridiculous.

Let's help you with this one...

Definition: Embellishment

1) [noun] elaboration of an interpretation by the use of decorative (sometimes fictitious) detail; "the mystery has been heightened by many embellishments in subsequent retellings"
Synonyms: embroidery

2) [noun] a superfluous ornament


3) [noun] the act of adding extraneous decorations to something
Synonyms: ornamentation

Definition: Hyperbole:

1) [noun] extravagant exaggeration
Synonyms: exaggeration



These are commonly-used literary constructs that appear in many aspects of everyday life. Here's more!

When someone says "I could have killed him", they probably don't mean they were contemplating the actual murder of the person mentioned.

When someone says "My dick was as hard as steel", it probably wasn't actually as hard as steel (except mine, which really is).

If someone says "I could eat a horse!" they probably couldn't actually ingest and digest a complete horse.

When someone says "He is full of shit", the person probably doesn't actually believe the other person is completely full of excriment.

HTH

So If I were to say "Conservatives want to rob the poor to give to the rich because that is what Hitler told them to do when they read Mein Kamph, and everyone knows american conservatives love Hitler" you wouldn't have a problem with that?

 

[mrplunkey]

So If I were to say "Conservatives want to rob the poor to give to the rich because that is what Hitler told them to do when they read Mein Kamph, and everyone knows american conservatives love Hitler" you wouldn't have a problem with that?

No, we'd laugh at you. I wouldn't consider it "a problem" because I'd consider the source. Besides, its compeletly acceptable in society to say horrible things about conservatives.