Paxman, Paxmaned?
Jeremy Paxman, famous for his contemptuous one line put downs, meets his match with a fearsome advocate for the US right Anne Coulter. Someone should have warned him, surely?
Update: It’s official: Paxman was indeed beaten!
Advertise
-
Books
-
Lessons in Cute Hoorism: “Graft was accepted, for you were taking from the British…”
I’ve been catching up on some reading, recently. Most pleasantly surprised by John Drennan’s latest opus from Gill and Macmillan, Cute Hoors and Pious Protestors… It’s early days yet, but I was struck by this paragraph, part of a dissection of Fianna Fail near the beginning: One of the more fatal consequences of our colonial [...] read our review »
-
The Earl Bishop
Interesting BBC article on an upcoming presentation and talk [Roe Valley Arts and Cultural Centre, 17 August] by lecturer and broadcaster Stephen Price on the subject of his new book – The Earl Bishop. The 18th Century ”Earl Bishop” was Frederick Augustus Hervey, fourth Earl of Bristol and Church of Ireland Bishop of Derry. Hervey was also elected [...] read our review »
-
“Unionism Decayed 1997-2007″ by David Vance: book review
I initially wrote this when the book was first published three years ago; whilst certain elements of it now sound dated, its basic premise that the period of 1997-2007 was a period of irreversible decay for Northern Irish Unionism can still be argued as a valid opinion. My own feeling is that it did indeed [...] read our review »
-
Stephen,
I’m glad somebody finally ahd the balls to say it
Dread Cthulhu, Franken offers empirical facts to support his criticism of Coulter’s books. Whatever you think of him personally is irrelevant to the current discussion.
“All things liberal are bad.”
ER, that REALLY is it!
Thing is, because there tend to be some liberal tolerant people around the system, they have to allow such people the airwaves even though the people they allow their fascistic rants spend 99% of their time off-air pouring contempt of the media for not being representative or giving them airtime.
You cant win with such people, or bigots, or racists and funnily enough, theres a very significant overlap between those groups and the constituency that this dog-faced woman represents.
Where she and others fall deeper into well- deserved contempt not just from the Left or Right, but of all humans, is their unforgiveable hatred for the bereaved who arent angry and demanding more death as a result of their loss – cue Cindy Sheehan ad nauseam and now, for Coulter, the 9-11 victims who dont share her right wing views.
I would say this woman is heading for a rendezvous with a bullet. Anyone else remember the movie “Bob Roberts”???
Galileo’s error was that he attempted to teach the heliocentric theory as the only true one while there were still major holes in it (an adequate explanation for the apparent lack of parallax had not then been arrived at).
Darwin’s ideas on evolution are similarly problematic: the absence of medium length necked giraffe fossils indicates that evolution occurs
suddenly, in bursts, and not as a gradual process of survival of the fittest as Darwin imagined it. But this does not mean that we have to revert to Genesis 1 as our explanation of these phenomena: Ovid’s Metamorphoses provides an equally mythological account with greater
explanatory adequacy.
As with global warming, these are topics to be debated, endlessly, by scientists. They are not there to be hijacked by right-wing bimbos (if you will excuse the argumentum ad feminam) with an agenda of perpetrating stupidity.
Her views on the Vietnam war are frankly abhorrent. The US lost nothing by withdrawing from that conflict, and if it had won, how would anything have been any different to the way it is now?
Mickhall: “Nah. Read the chapters where Franken points out the factual inaccuracies in Coulters books. Read the bit where he goes over her strategies for “argument”. Then apply everywhere, not just to Coulter.
I don’t really give a toss what you think of him, personally. ”
Precisely my point — you accept Franken because his comments, when juxtaposed with your beliefs, are sufficiently alike, as opposed to the jarring comments from Coulter. You accept what he says at face value because you agree with him.
Likewise, you don’t care about Franken’s short-comings, factual or talent, becaue he is “your” guy.
EsmeraldaV: “Dread, I didn’t suggest she was in the KKK (though the idea of her in a white cloak on horseback is fairly alluring) just that the extreme right in America probably look up to this woman and may even take her seriously.”
No, you said she was a cheerleader for the Klan, a smear with no substance, as you have introduced no substantive evidence of her anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and/or racism. As for her “ragheads” comment, I think that is little more than propaganda, much as “Jerry”, “Hun” and “Boche” were in other conflicts. Now, as for her use of hyperbole, is that not a legitimate writing device, even in liberal ivory towers?
Kensei
“Mick any chance of introducing a right wingnut filter [sic] so I don’t have to see anymore of Flashman’s posts?”
Go f**k yourself pal, if you aren’t up to debating issues you clown, then you really shouldn’t come on here.
I have as much right to post here as you have, do you want to try posting something substantive other than crappy wiki links or is that beyond you? I have actually engaged in meaningful debate here, you have produced nothing.
(Sorry for the ad hominem, Slug, but I think you will agree I was provoked)
Let’s face it- Ann Coulter is right about a certain kind of liberal hegemony in modern America. Why not celebrate the fact that rationality and civilisation have advanced since the ‘sixties’ in ways that are abhorent to her. Let’s also recognise that in many other ways the US is still essentially ruled by power elites, riddled with off the chart fundamentalism, militarising space as we sleep, etc.
I thought Paxman was patronising and aggressive in the interview, and at a certain level Coulter was dignified in her attitude. How dare he try to set the limits for acceptable discourse in ways that make someone like Coulter seem even remotely appealing.
Kensai,
No political filters Ken. Just the one not playing the man, oh and the CIVIL engagement theory Harry!!!
Box on lads…
Dread
…you have introduced no substantive evidence of her anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and/or racism.
No evidence of racism? Oh, please! Did you read my posts? Did you read the linked column? Must try harder…
You don’t call it hyperbole (I’m straining at the leash here – insert suitable insult directed at your intelligence) – you call it incitement to racial hatred.
To have you lecture me now seems less credible. To go back to your first post, I never made fun of her. If she makes a living spouting this garbage, good luck to her. I just pity the more weak minded who do not have the intelligence to see through the hyperbole/racism (tomato/tomato)in the narrative and believe it.
Esmeralda Villelobos: “No evidence of racism? Oh, please! Did you read my posts? Did you read the linked column? Must try harder… ”
Words mean things, usually rather precise things, Esmeralda. Unless you subscribe to Rosenberg’s theory of racial confusion. They are a Mediterranean people, swathy Caucasians and not a seperate “race.” Likewise, the hyperbole of one column is perhaps a nail in her coffin, but not irrefutable evidence of her racism. I know the ivory towers are not used to harsh language and emotionalist responses, but, frankly, as she is an American, I would think she would be entitled to her hot-button, knee-jerk reactions to certain issues. Likewise, given the NYT’s apparent desire to make the US less secure, what with their publishing of information on a legal effort to watch over international bank transfers to catch terrorists, I can see them getting shellacked by the blonde bomb-thrower.
EsmeraldaV: “You don’t call it hyperbole (I’m straining at the leash here – insert suitable insult directed at your intelligence) – you call it incitement to racial hatred.”
tsk tsk… poor Esmeralda, unable to frolic in the gutter as is her want.
The very “over-the-top” nature of her comments shows that it is satiric hyperbole. I know that the ivory towers are bloodless, multi-culti bastions of dhimmitude and hand-wringing, but to take literally what is obviously intended as satire is ludicrous. When you read “A Modest Proposal,” did you actually believe Swift was advocating the consumption of human flesh?
Can you imagine him describing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist? -
Wasnt he?
Well at least you’re nailing your colours to the mast. So it’s OK to say these things about Arabs/Muslims because a large proportion of them are just vaguely dusky and not black. It’s not racism then – let’s just covert them and be done with it. *hangs head and shakes slowly*
I don’t make allowances for people on the basis of where there parents decided to procreate. Just ’cause she’s American doesn’t give her carte blanche to broadcast race hate across the media. This is not satire: she means it, you know it, get over yourself.
“Go f**k yourself pal, if you aren’t up to debating issues you clown, then you really shouldn’t come on here.
I have as much right to post here as you have, do you want to try posting something substantive other than crappy wiki links or is that beyond you? I have actually engaged in meaningful debate here, you have produced nothing. ”
Oh, go f**k yourself too. It was just a little tease.
No, you haven’t actually debated anything, you’ve given the standard right wing line on well, everything ever.
The liberal media bias is everywhere.
It’s not Creationism it’s just picking holes in Evolutionary Theory.
Climate Change is not true.
Now, as fun as it would be to go through those topics, they have been done to death and done better than by me. If you post stuff like:
“The same way as man made Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change (or however the BBC is describing it this week) may also not be subject to critical analysis. Coulter’s point is that ideas like these have replaced Christianity as the new religion. If you disagree with her I suggest pointing out to a school teacher or BBC editor that most of the evidence for climate change is unscientific piffle,”
you can’t expect people to take you entirely seriously. There is no argument there, just ranting. If you really want to talk about climate change, tone it down, raise some specific objections, and we’ll go from there.
“Precisely my point—you accept Franken because his comments, when juxtaposed with your beliefs, are sufficiently alike, as opposed to the jarring comments from Coulter. You accept what he says at face value because you agree with him.”
No, I accept what he says because he has empirical evidence and a damn good arguemnt to back up what he says.
“Likewise, you don’t care about Franken’s short-comings, factual or talent, becaue he is “your” guy.”
Correct on one score. I really don’t care about his talent, because half the book was written by researchers anyway. I do care if he’s got facts wrong, and would surely like to see that.
“I think Im doing just fine”
…her smug little closing line says it all, playing to every half baked, slimy little prejudice across the US and elsewhere makes the top of the best sellers. Can’t believe Swift was mentioned in the same thread as this cynical bitch who is coining it out of prejudice?
Ive an idea… why doesnt she start a blog (without a tipjar) and stop writing books if she REALLY believes all she writes? (which, I think nails the lie that she is all hyperbole.) The woman is all about Hate.
“You accept Franken because his comments, when juxtaposed with your beliefs, are sufficiently alike, as opposed to the jarring comments from Coulter. You accept what he says at face value because you agree with him.”
Nah – his comments regarding Coulters work are backed up by empiracal facts, not partisan argument. I know I said this earlier but Dread Cthulhu chose to ignore it. (I’m not arguing about Franken himself here Dread, I am agreeing with his well researched criticism of Coulter).
Kensei
Try debating me, ok? I posted two several paragraph long posts defending Ann Coulter, citing instances where I believed her viewpoint to be correct, in return you post a link to Wikipedia. Then you call on the administrator to censor me because you don’t like my political viewpoints, I got annoyed at that, not unnaturally.
You don’t like my politics? Fine. I can’t say whether I like yours or not because frankly I don’t know anything about your opinions as I don’t actually remember anything worthwhile you’ve ever posted on any subject here. However even if, like many other posters whose opinions are worth discussing, I did disagree with you, I would still never demand that you be banned.
Try not to be such an adolescent. You want to discuss politics? Good, discuss politics, leave out the childish name calling. If you want to resort to citing wiki and calling for me to be censored then expect me to tell you where to shove it.
Now, do you want to actually debate the substance of the original post with proper debates and rebuttals or do you want to remain on the sidelines making silly, idiotic, irrelevant comments?
Jo: “…her smug little closing line says it all, playing to every half baked, slimy little prejudice across the US and elsewhere makes the top of the best sellers. Can’t believe Swift was mentioned in the same thread as this cynical bitch who is coining it out of prejudice? ”
Prejudice or anger? How much did she discuss Arab politics prior to five years ago or so?
Likewise, I sincerely doubt she believes what she writes, in the literal sense. The United States may still allow the death penalty, but they do so in the dead of night, away from the eyes of the public. How does one seriously think that America could go from that to daily televised whippings and rackings? It just doesn’t follow.
As for Swift, it was simply to illustrate the point — she does not literally mean what she writes, no more than Swift intended the jugging and stewing of infants.
Jo,
Ann Coulter writes books which regularly top the best selling list, she researches her work thoroughly, invariably instigates international debates (as in this case) and makes for very entertaining reading.
However I do see your point, if only she gave all that boring oul’ shite up and started writing a blog in Belfast about her drinking habits and which particular lesbian celebrity she fancied then we could all take her seriously, eh!
Christ Jo, love, did you ever hear about people in glass houses?
We’re debating her, not the issues – I think she’ll be very pleased with the extra publicity. Might sell another book or two.
Gum: “Nah – his comments regarding Coulters work are backed up by empiracal facts, not partisan argument. I know I said this earlier but Dread Cthulhu chose to ignore it. (I’m not arguing about Franken himself here Dread, I am agreeing with his well researched criticism of Coulter). ”
There are dangers in “empirical facts,” Gum, in that they are relatively easy to manipulate.
Two headlines dealing with a motor race involving a Russian car and an American one.
American Headline: American car triumphs, Russian car loses.
Russian Headline: Russian car takes second place in great race; American car finished next to last.
Both are empirically accurate, and yet each provides an entirely different view of events. Thus, simply empiricism can lose deeper truths. No, as Franken is not what I would call a deep thinker (for the record, neither in Ms. Coulter), and given some other rebuttals to his “empirical truths,” I would advise you, if you honestly had an interest in veracity, to find some primary source level reference information and decide for yourself.
Now, the more complex the event, the easier it is to manipulate by simply shading their description of events.
Esmeralda: “We’re debating her, not the issues – I think she’ll be very pleased with the extra publicity. Might sell another book or two. ”
Which, I suspect, is the whole point of her excercise.
Were she to stand on an orange crate in the park, she’d be dismissed as a crank. She puts it down on paper, dresses provocatively, slings a few glib comments meant to outrage the ivory tower set, finds herself verbally savaged in some quarters and her sales go through the roof. Next go ’round, the converted queue up early, making her sales seem impressive early, the spin machines whirl up to speed and the process repeats.
Kinda makes you wonder — what if she wrote a book and no one shrieked in outrage?
I am dismissing her as a crank!
(The word at the bottom is soviet88 – imagine her in the cold war – Russkies heads on sticks no doubt- yikes!)
Esmerelda: Well at least you’re nailing your colours to the mast. So it’s OK to say these things about Arabs/Muslims because a large proportion of them are just vaguely dusky and not black. It’s not racism then – let’s just covert them and be done with it. *hangs head and shakes slowly*”
The lines of an old SNL faux news routine come to mind…
Its not racism because its not about race. Words mean things and no amount of you ginning up or shaking your head is going to change that. Your KKK smear is void of any real support. That she doesn’t wish to make nice with Muslims may be distasteful, but it is also understandable — as I asked Jo, how much did she discuss Arabs pre-9/11.
Esmerelda: “I don’t make allowances for people on the basis of where there parents decided to procreate. Just ‘cause she’s American doesn’t give her carte blanche to broadcast race hate across the media. This is not satire: she means it, you know it, get over yourself. ”
Actually, it does, under the system she operates under. She is not ‘broadcasting race hate,’ since Muslims aren’t a race, nor are Arabs. As for “getting over myself.” I would advise you do deal with the plank in your own eye before you worry about the mote in mine. There is no way she means this in a literal sense. She is a pundit. What she lacks in gravitas, she makes up in volume and shock. She is the Howard Stern of politics, here to rattle your cage and surf the wave of outrage to financial success.
Harry
It really is a laugh seeing you having a go about other people being personal and irrelevant in any argument as you are incapable of not doing that yourself.
As for her being entertaining, she made it clear that she believes all the stuff. Geddit? She believes it all She isnt having a laugh – except at the gullible little racists who think that shes anything other than manipulative cynical making money out of racists and peabrains..like..
Esmerelda: “I am dismissing her as a crank!
”
But you’re still shrieking…
The more you shriek, the more attention she gets;
the more attention she get, the more she sells.
One of the more “interesting” things I “seen” in the last year (other than the sides taken in this discussion — talk about some odd-couples), was one of the various GLBT groups in America complaining that the religious right had decided not to boycott and picket “Brokeback Mountain,” claiming there was a conspiracy to deny the movie publicity in their decision. The same sort of thing applies here. Were the liberal press and pundits to simply shrug, she would eventually fade into the woodwork.
jaysus, American politics is even more polarized than ours here in Northern Ireland. This thread, just like the arguments put forward by people like Ann Coulter, seem to be less concerned with working through the issues in a methodical way, and more concerned with childish, ad hominem attacks on those making the arguments. Harry Flashman, your arguments are indicative of this trend. You spent your first contribution here writing a long and extensive attack on “liberalism” and the people espousing it.
Coulter’s most famous quotes are not argument-destroying critiques of flawed liberalism, but outrageous/controversial ad hominem attacks on people. That tells me that we’re dealing with a loudmouth.
As for Darwinism, she is not putting forward creationism she is rightly pointing out there are Marianus Trench sized holes in his theory
Name one.
which have not been adequately addressed but it is still sacred devine text to liberals.
Name a liberal who describes Darwin as “sacred divine text”. Go on.
No scientist describes Darwinism as fact. It is merely the best theory that we have which fits the available, observed facts, and to date no facts have become available which refute it. Paxman’s question “what is your alternative” was clearly intended to make that point; that Coulter failed to answer it shows how poor her grasp of the details here actually is.
I see also she is another one of the people who call themselves Christians who believes in killing lots of people and attacking countries. What part of Christianity makes this easy or consistent to advocate ? I thought Christianity was supposed to be about peace and forgiveness.
But I take your point about the 9/11 widows being fair game once they entered a political campaign.
It’s not like the rightists haven’t tried this either. Does anyone recall Bush saying “that man tried to kill my Dad” ? Bush’s entire “war on terrorism” policy is supposedly based on the suffering of the people who died on 9/11. Coulter’s argument about people using their grief to forward their arguments appears to apply everywhere. By far the most famous example of this was the “Support the troops” maxim in the USA which was used to silence those who opposed the war by suggesting that they were trying to undermine the military. Coulter is wrong to say that this tactic is the preserve of the Democrats.
I can’t say I’m impressed by Coulter at all. Paxman was uncharacteristically poorly prepared. If he’d done his homework, he could have flattened her by digging up some of her choice quotes about Muslims or “jokes” about murdering the staff of the New York Times.
Comrade
Well put. Abuse instead of argument. At least AC kept her cool on newsnight.
“So we’re now 31 posts in and Ann Coulter’s positions have still not been rebutted, now as well as all the other abuse we learn that she’s in the KKK, as DC points out an organisation inextricably linked to the Democratic party in the US”
Ourageous suggestion. For a start, no one has suggested Coulter is in the KK. On the Democrats While this may have once been true, you appear to have missed the past 40 years, dating from Nixon’s “Southern Grab” strtaegy, which was extraordinarily successful, and absolutely rammed home by Reagan. I suggest you look at the last US election results.
“Mickhall, Coulter does not set out to present herself as a brave outsider, the fact that compared to the mainstream US and UK media she IS an outsider”
In terms of her being a right wing voice? This does not stand up. Talk Radio in the US is dominated by right wing commentators, Fox News provides right wing news, and there are several right wing papers of various shades in the US.
If we are talking about the main networks and say, the NYT, there have been several studies. Typically the bias of the source is refelected in the results, which doesn’t tell us an awful lot.
But if we must, aside from Franken’s examination of that myth, there is:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009K762G/sr=8-1/qid=1151432533/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2674871-4857447?ie=UTF8
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604040001
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009B2WVU/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-2674871-4857447?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400047285/ref=pd_sim_b_2/103-2674871-4857447?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
which I turned up against 3 seconds of looking. And of course, the left has been found guilty of planting stories and reporters, to my knowledge.
“is beside the point, she merely writes very successful books pointing out the hypocrisy and lies upon which is based the liberal establishment (ie the media, academia, mainstream churches, the judiciary and civil service).”
That is a rather subjective statement. Nothing to answer.
“Paxman himself acknowledged by this by his embarrassed laugh and rapid changing of the subject when she whacked his ball out of the ground by pointing out his nasty, snarky intro (can you imagine Noam Chomsky getting an intro like that?) that she is right about the media’s liberal bias.”
Again, subjective statement, nothing to answer.
“Her position is total anathema to the current liberal bilge which passes for current affairs in the UK and the US.”
Does 3 times in a row count as ranting yet?
“As for Franken, get real folks he is up to his eyeballs in corruption as a result of stealing from NY City childrens’ charities in order to fund his left wing talk radio station Air America, (there’s nothing like reinventing the dodo I suppose).”
Ok. Several things here:
1. Has this been proven? otherwise surely this is a potential libel?
2. This is an attack on the source, not any of the facts he has presented. Which is precisely was you are accusing people of doing to Coulter!
“As for Darwinism, she is not putting forward creationism she is rightly pointing out there are Marianus Trench sized holes in his theory which have not been adequately addressed but it is still sacred devine text to liberals.”
1. Straw man. No one suggests that evolutionary theory is perfect, merely the best we have.
2. Liberals would drop the theory in a shot if a better theory with more evidence came along.
3. Evolution is what’s sacred to liberal’s, it’s keeping religious fundamentalism away from science that is sacred. What matters to the Science is the Scientific Method.
4. That is a smokescreen anyway to try and get Creationism by the back door. Is it a coincidence that the same people pushing Creationism are the ones currently pushing ID?
“The same way as man made Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change (or however the BBC is describing it this week) may also not be subject to critical analysis.”
Man made climate change has been subjected to rigorous peer review over the past two decades. It would be impossible for it not to be, with it’s high profile. The actually quite well referenced Wiki article not good enough? How about the Met Office:
http://www.metoffice.com/corporate/scitech0304/what_climate.html
“Coulter’s point is that ideas like these have replaced Christianity as the new religion.
If you disagree with her I suggest pointing out to a school teacher or BBC editor that most of the evidence for climate change is unscientific piffle, you will treated to the same look of horrified incomprehension that Gallileo got when he mentioned the Earth revolved round the Sun.”
And exactly how or what way am I supposed to respond to that? It is a pure rant.
Nicely put CS
Corrections:
“And of course, the left has been found guilty of planting stories and reporters, to my knowledge.”
should be
“And of course, the left has NOT been found guilty of planting stories and reporters, to my knowledge.2
“3. Evolution is what’s sacred to liberal’s, it’s keeping religious fundamentalism away from science that is sacred. What matters to the Science is the Scientific Method.”
should be
“3. Evolution is NOT what’s sacred to liberal’s, it’s keeping religious fundamentalism away from science that is sacred. What matters to the Science is the Scientific Method.”
and kensei for that matter
I thought the unsourced anecdotal kindergarten Tupperware was particularly pathetic and typically juvenile as an example of the rampant universal irredeemably liberal condition of the United States (pop 200,000,000 plus) Its the sort of thing your granny would cite as “proof” when it is quite patently proof of feck all.
But then again some minds find this stuff “entertaining.” Bring back Morecambe and bloody Wise, ffs.
“Try debating me, ok?”
I attempt above. It’s hard when there isn’t much to debate.
“I posted two several paragraph long posts defending Ann Coulter, citing instances where I believed her viewpoint to be correct, in return you post a link to Wikipedia.”
I posted a link on climate change for the diagrams. I could have picked any number of a hundred of sites. And you didn’t actualy defend her opinion, more ranted about liberals.
“Then you call on the administrator to censor me because you don’t like my political viewpoints, I got annoyed at that, not unnaturally.”
No, I called on the admin to censor you because you are doing a parody of a right wing commentator and actively lowering the standard of debate.
“You don’t like my politics? Fine. I can’t say whether I like yours or not because frankly I don’t know anything about your opinions as I don’t actually remember anything worthwhile you’ve ever posted on any subject here.”
I do try.
“Try not to be such an adolescent. You want to discuss politics? Good, discuss politics, leave out the childish name calling. If you want to resort to citing wiki and calling for me to be censored then expect me to tell you where to shove it.”
What’s wrong with Wiki? Adequate sourced articles are a fine introduction to a topic. And guess what? I don’t actually give a shit if you tell me to shove it. I can tell you to shove it back.
“Try not to be such an adolescent. You want to discuss politics? Good, discuss politics, leave out the childish name calling. If you want to resort to citing wiki and calling for me to be censored then expect me to tell you where to shove it.”
I’m touched, but I wa sborn with a chronic alergy to right wing ranting. And you aren’t discusisng politics. You’re shouting your views. That’s different.
“Now, do you want to actually debate the substance of the original post with proper debates and rebuttals or do you want to remain on the sidelines making silly, idiotic, irrelevant comments?”
I’d love to debate the points. Unforunately, you haven’t actually made any, instead blindly repeated the right wing party line. As I said, if you could raise some specific objection on say, evolution or climate change or bias I could maube attempt to debate it. But as you see above, what you’ve poste dis nothing like that.
Well put. Abuse instead of argument. At least AC kept her cool on newsnight.
AC’s book – if the quotations that we’ve seen are anything to go by – are a long torrent of abuse.
Someone else wrote :
So we’re now 31 posts in and Ann Coulter’s positions have still not been rebutted,
Are we supposed to sit here all night and rebut everything she’s ever said ? Pick a point and let’s go through it. I’ll rebut one for you to start off with “The question should be, are all terrorists Muslims ? The answer has to be yes”. I know of at least one terrorist who was not a Muslim, therefore the statement is rebutted. Your serve.
In any case, as Kensei has said, Ann Coulter hasn’t said anything that can be rebutted. She just rants.
Having never even heard of this lass until seeing this topic, I figured I’d go and see what she had to say. Having read the lead article on http://www.anncoulter.com, I can’t see that any of her supporters could possibly have any cause to complain about attacks on her. There is barely a line in it that isn’t a personal attack on someone or something.
Also there was the rather surreal comment
“After Hitler carried the secularists’ philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups.”
Assuming that she think “liberal” and “secular” are the same thing from context, this seems to be totally self contradictory. Maybe I need to read the listed book to try to work out what she is on about, but if liberals believe there is no difference between races and Hitler believed it enough to try to wipe out a race (and whatever the definition of race, Hitler believed that is what he was doing), whats her point? That the liberals are wrong, therefore Hitler was right?
Further on “While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus…..Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does. ”
I take it then she either also refutes the huge percentages of AIDS in countries such as Thailand and Swaziland (and couple of other sub-Saharan countries) or that these countries have up to 30-35% gay population?
Both the liberal and conservative philosophies have ther lunatic wing, I can’t see much in her writings to suggest that she is not amongst them.
The final paragraph to me illustrates her policy:
“Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can. “
“I would advise you, if you honestly had an interest in veracity, to find some primary source level reference information and decide for yourself.”
Yeah? Thanks for the tip Dread, I’ll try to keep it in mind. I have a bit of experience in how words can be spun myself though, and Franken’s study of her writing was pretty thorough though. If you have read what I am talking about, I think you’d agree.
Kensai: “Ourageous suggestion. For a start, no one has suggested Coulter is in the KK(K).”
Actually, I do believe the Esmerelda referred to her as “making a good living cheerleading for the Klan members out there,” suggesting a level of association / sympathy, in not registered membership.
Kensai: “On the Democrats While this may have once been true, you appear to have missed the past 40 years, dating from Nixon’s “Southern Grab” strtaegy, which was extraordinarily successful, and absolutely rammed home by Reagan. I suggest you look at the last US election results. ”
Not entirely accurate — I do so enjoy the irony of men who as Democratic governors put the “Stars and Bars” over the capitals of their states later becoming Democratic Senators and campaigning to take them back down again. The only known KKK member in American politics is Senator Byrd of West Virginia, a Democrat. Likewise the mentors of some of the recent and current crop of Southern democratic officeholders are the racists of yesteryear, such as Al Gore, Sr. and Senator Fullbright of Arkansas.
Kensai: “In terms of her being a right wing voice? This does not stand up. Talk Radio in the US is dominated by right wing commentators, Fox News provides right wing news, and there are several right wing papers of various shades in the US. ”
Uh-huh… let’s examine this cute bit of sophistry. Let us assume, arguendo, that what you have said here is accurate. Compare that to the three major free television broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, and the majority of American newspapers. The only place right-of-center dominates is radio, partly because the most successful syndicated programs are right of center and partly because liberal/left-wing radio doesn’t work on the national level — Air America is a disaster, mainly because its not entertaining… Ironic, seeing as the displaced successful local liberal programs, such as WLIB in NYC. While perhaps empirically true, your arguement is pretty weak, when the balance of the American media is brought into the arguement.
Kensei: “1. Has this been proven? otherwise surely this is a potential libel?
2. This is an attack on the source, not any of the facts he has presented. Which is precisely was you are accusing people of doing to Coulter! ”
IIRC, Franken essentially claimed ignorance, despite some damning documents. The network has “taken responsibility” and is paying back the crooked loans. Given that Franken was one of the “players” at the network and, again, iirc, signed off on some of the documents, he is liable / responsible, if not in the know. Moral: read before you sign.
Kensei: “Man made climate change has been subjected to rigorous peer review over the past two decades. It would be impossible for it not to be, with it’s high profile. ”
The difference between climate change (baseline) and climate change (baseline + man-made) is miniscule. The two other locations in the solar system where global warming is being seen are Mars (shrinking polar caps) and Jupiter (a second “red-eye” storm). Shockingly, there is a remarkable shortage of SUVs, coal-burning plants or people at either of these locations. Likewise, when one looks at emission reductions, the United States is actually ahead of Europe, with an exception or two, when it comes to achieving the reductions mandated in the Kyoto treaty. Then again, Kyoto is a red herring, seeing as the last time it went to the Senate, it was unanimously rejected in a non-binding vote. Ergo, global warming, as much as some may pose, is not all that a partisan issue in the United States.
Gum: “Yeah? Thanks for the tip Dread, I’ll try to keep it in mind. I have a bit of experience in how words can be spun myself though, and Franken’s study of her writing was pretty thorough though. If you have read what I am talking about, I think you’d agree.”
I have and I wasn’t particularly impressed. His arguements, in general, are ground mainly in sneering at other folks than facts, such as his peeing contest with O’Reilly and some of his more “stunt” based items, such as the letter he wrote to AG Ashcroft. His signature vis-a-vis the Gloria-Wise Boys and Girls Club indicates he was a party to the questionable, if not illegal loan, further damaging his credibility.
To go directly to his book, his effort to break the media into the noble “mainstream” and the evil “right-wing,” without acknowledging even the possibility of a liberal bias suggests that just maybe he has an axe to grind.
The short form is is that he is the same as Coulter — a self-promoting author and pundit what thrives on controversy. Truly a case of pick your poison
This is all pure unmitigated bollix.
She is a lawyer with an angle and a hellova book deal. She and Bill Maher play off each other on prime time like Gable and Lombard.
It’s not an opinion, Mick, it’s not politics, it’s all show biz, Sluggiepoos. You’ll find more hard news on the Daily Show.
Meanwhile, in the middle of the rediscovered Energy Crisis, the continuing war in Iraq, and the pawning of the purple mountains majesty to the People’s Republic of China …….. the US Senate is debating a George H. W. Bush’s old flag burning ammendment.
It must be election time.
“Let’s face it- Ann Coulter is right about a certain kind of liberal hegemony in modern America.”
I’ll have what the kid is having.
Make mine a double.
Ann was great, Paxman is overated, and the BBC bias was superbly exposed! Ann is our mascot over on ATW you know.
*rolls eyes*
Office pin-up eh?
Scary woman that AC … frightening that she seems to believe the nonsense she’s spouting. Paxman was very very poor, he could have done a much better job.
“Ann is our mascot over on ATW you know”
Shock horror!
Listen,
Whenever ANY leftist comes up against an informed conservative – like Ann – they are shown up for their lilliputian selves! The problem is that there are so very few authentic conservative voices in the UK, (Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, Richard Littlejohn excepted) and of course none in Ireland.
“The problem is…”
Problem? It’s a blessing. Any more nut jobs i’d be forced to move to an isolated cabin in the mountains with no access to any media.
Do you think there’s a reason they’re dying out, David? Natural selection, perhaps?
Vance is just trolling. If he thought there were a significant number of conservatives of his ilk, he’d stand for election. But he won’t do that, because he knows he’d lose badly.
The significant mass of the Republican Party in the USA are too liberal for Coulter; as such it’s hard to tell how popular her views are at all.
I thought the natural selection bit would have at least got a laugh – ho-hum
The world´s gone madder and accuracy is out the window. I mean, Eastern European Caucasians get beaten up by Irish Caucasians and this is called a racist attack instead of the xenophobic thuggery it is.
A sick WASPette calls Arabs ragheads and calls for their forceable conversion and this is somehow not racism, it´s hyperbole?!? Good grief.
Plus why oh why rightwing fonts of wisdom is the BBC, the Guardian and the whole liberal media involved in this ´conspiracy´ to make up lies about global warming?