Been working on this one as "bathroom reading" for a few weeks now, just about done...


In summary - she points out how Democrats have consistently sold out the US for the last 60 years, created the myth of "McCarthyism" now taught as fact, cry "Vietnam" every chance they get, and use the media to re-write history in their favor.

Ann did a LOT of research for this book, and it shows.

Unfortunately, the repeated name calling and side jabs get old about 20 pages into the book :(

Sad really - ruins what otherwise is a well written and well researched piece of work.

I give it :cool2::cool2::cool2::cool2: out of a possible 5.



(BTW - once done with this one, I will be picking up Al Franken's book to get a little balance - even though the guy makes me sick, I am gonna try to struggle through it.)

How many pics of her are in it? Any boobie shots?

Originally posted by Bubba Ray Boudreaux
How many pics of her are in it? Any boobie shots?

Get 'yer pron elsewhere boy :p

Originally posted by DRM


Get 'yer pron elsewhere boy :p

What's a pron? Is that Tron's little brother?

Just mess'in with ya since I already know what to expect if I read her book and I am thinking it would be a fine read.........:D

Ann has to do the side jabs and repeated insults because soooo many in her audience are mindless Rush Limbaugh robots. And let's face it, most people are idiots. So, she simply played to her audience. It is, indeed, sad.

The left has their Striesand and Fonda fans, and the right has their Limbaugh fans. We're all cursed with morons.

Originally posted by rusted
Ann has to do the side jabs and repeated insults because soooo many in her audience are mindless Rush Limbaugh robots. And let's face it, most people are idiots. So, she simply played to her audience. It is, indeed, sad.

The left has their Striesand and Fonda fans, and the right has their Limbaugh fans. We're all cursed with morons.


lol :p

I'm sure her book is just as "fair and balanced' as Fox news....:flipoff2:


The way I look at it is this. If somone has something to gain by pushing or promoting an agenda, then they are more than likely full of shit. That simple.


DRM, I commend you on picking up Frankens book as well. It's nice to see someone trying to look at both sides, rather than just picking one and following blindly.

Right up front I'll admit I could not make it all the way through her book so I didn't read the entire thing, and I don't know the ending ;) So, keep that in mind.

However, the reasons I couldn't get through it are very well spelled out in Franken's book. I made notes as I went through what I could of Coulter's book and found some EXTREMELY glarring examples of out right lies and misquotes. Did you go through and check the end notes for every quote she uses to double check them? I did, and was sickened. The worst abuse Frank and I both found, and you can look it up yourself. I highlighted it and Franken uses it also:

After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion contrary to the clearly expressed position of The New York Times editorial page, the Times responded with an editorial on Thomas titled, "The Youngest, Cruelest Justice." That was actually the headline on a lead editorial in the Newspaper of Record. Thomas is not engaged on the substance of his judicial philosophy. He is called a "colored lawn jockey for consevative white interests," "race traitor," "black nakes," "chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom,"(39) "house Negro" and hankerchief head," "Benedict Arnold"(40) and "Judas Iscariot."(41) All this from the tireless opponents of intolerance.

Page 12 of Treason

Okay now it seems those came right out of the NYT, and I'd bet every dollar I've got that the CLEAR majority of readers walk away thinking the NYT said that in their editorial. Check the endnotes though. There you will note these quotes are from a Playboy interview with Joycelyn Elders and a quote from the New Yorker attributed to some guy at a Souther Christain Leadership Conference. Coulter should be ashamed of being so dishonest.

She also tries to tie Newsweeks's Washington guy, Evan Thomas, to a guy who was the Socialist candidate for Pres "four times" (actually Norman Thomas was a candidate six times but Coulter even got that wrong) by saying Norman Thomas was Evan Thomas' father. This is an out right lie and Coulter never makes up for it. The guys aren't even related. If her book is supposed to be anything outside of fictional entertainment, shouldn't she get such an easily verifiable fact correct especially if she is going to try to slander someone with it? Again, Coulter should be ashamed of her dishonesty.

Another thing she does throughout her book and on appearances on TV is talk about Lexis-Nexis. Awesome tool. However, she ALWAYS overloads the search. Fanken and I noticed another similar mistake here. She complains about a speech Jackson gave in on British TV and that the Times didn't cover it at all. On page 8, she says, "LexisNexis search of New York Times archives from December 1994 through January 1995 for 'Jesse Jackson and Germany and fascism and South America' produces no documents." That overloads LexisNexis and it won't result in any returns. However, run Jesse Jackson and Christmas and Britain, and you get a result showing the times did run an article on the controversy. Again Coulter should be ashamed of her dishonesty.

Heck, she even claimed Reagan's poll numbers only fell from 70 to 65% during the Iran-Contra scandal while his Gallup numbers really fell from 63% to 47%. Isn't that dishonest and shouldn't she be ashamed?

One thing Franken points out that I didn't notice (remember I didn't read it all the way trhough) is that she mentions Truman only once and criticzes him for getting us into Korea and not being able to get us out for 2 years. Yet, she doesn't mention his glarring successes like the Marshall Plan, NATO, the Truman Doctrine or making the hard decision to drop the bomb twice to end WWII. I'd call that being dishonest with the facts of history.

I'll make a deal with you though David. I'll read all the way through Coulter's book (restarting from the beginning) and Franken's book. Then I will do an honest report here if you do the same.

In the meantime, look up just the above examples. I hope you are horrified at her leack of credibility.

Curtis - just one question... are you REALLY giving that nutjob Franken THAT much credit for being accurate and fair? :confused:

IMHO - using him as a reference doesn't really say much :p

I mean come on... how upstanding and respected can a person be who titles one of their books "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat Idiot"? :confused :shaking:


But I do intend to read his book, so I will reserve more comments until then :)

Originally posted by DRM
Curtis - just one question... are you REALLY giving that nutjob Franken THAT much credit for being accurate and fair? :confused:

IMHO - using him as a reference doesn't really say much :p

I mean come on... how upstanding and respected can a person be who titles one of their books "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat Idiot"? :confused :shaking:


But I do intend to read his book, so I will reserve more comments until then :)

No, no, no. These are the lies *I* found in Coulter's book and I mentioned it just so happens Franken found them also. What do you say to the lies and way she twists things to fit her agenda? Don't get clouded by Franken or that I mentioned him only after you mentioned him. Ignore him. What about *MY* accusations I listed above?

Originally posted by Curtis


No, no, no. These are the lies *I* found in Coulter's book and I mentioned it just so happens Franken found them also. What do you say to the lies and way she twists things to fit her agenda? Don't get clouded by Franken or that I mentioned him only after you mentioned him. Ignore him. What about *MY* accusations I listed above?


Since it is late Friday and I am heading out of the office in a few minutes, I will have to research the issue at a later time... Have a good weekend :)

Originally posted by DRM



Since it is late Friday and I am heading out of the office in a few minutes, I will have to research the issue at a later time... Have a good weekend :)

Fair enough. Have a good one

Originally posted by Curtis
Right up front I'll admit I could not make it all the way through her book so I didn't read the entire thing, and I don't know the ending ;) So, keep that in mind.

However, the reasons I couldn't get through it are very well spelled out in Franken's book. I made notes as I went through what I could of Coulter's book and found some EXTREMELY glarring examples of out right lies and misquotes. Did you go through and check the end notes for every quote she uses to double check them? I did, and was sickened. The worst abuse Frank and I both found, and you can look it up yourself. I highlighted it and Franken uses it also:



Okay now it seems those came right out of the NYT, and I'd bet every dollar I've got that the CLEAR majority of readers walk away thinking the NYT said that in their editorial. Check the endnotes though. There you will note these quotes are from a Playboy interview with Joycelyn Elders and a quote from the New Yorker attributed to some guy at a Souther Christain Leadership Conference. Coulter should be ashamed of being so dishonest.

She also tries to tie Newsweeks's Washington guy, Evan Thomas, to a guy who was the Socialist candidate for Pres "four times" (actually Norman Thomas was a candidate six times but Coulter even got that wrong) by saying Norman Thomas was Evan Thomas' father. This is an out right lie and Coulter never makes up for it. The guys aren't even related. If her book is supposed to be anything outside of fictional entertainment, shouldn't she get such an easily verifiable fact correct especially if she is going to try to slander someone with it? Again, Coulter should be ashamed of her dishonesty.

Another thing she does throughout her book and on appearances on TV is talk about Lexis-Nexis. Awesome tool. However, she ALWAYS overloads the search. Fanken and I noticed another similar mistake here. She complains about a speech Jackson gave in on British TV and that the Times didn't cover it at all. On page 8, she says, "LexisNexis search of New York Times archives from December 1994 through January 1995 for 'Jesse Jackson and Germany and fascism and South America' produces no documents." That overloads LexisNexis and it won't result in any returns. However, run Jesse Jackson and Christmas and Britain, and you get a result showing the times did run an article on the controversy. Again Coulter should be ashamed of her dishonesty.

Heck, she even claimed Reagan's poll numbers only fell from 70 to 65% during the Iran-Contra scandal while his Gallup numbers really fell from 63% to 47%. Isn't that dishonest and shouldn't she be ashamed?

One thing Franken points out that I didn't notice (remember I didn't read it all the way trhough) is that she mentions Truman only once and criticzes him for getting us into Korea and not being able to get us out for 2 years. Yet, she doesn't mention his glarring successes like the Marshall Plan, NATO, the Truman Doctrine or making the hard decision to drop the bomb twice to end WWII. I'd call that being dishonest with the facts of history.

I'll make a deal with you though David. I'll read all the way through Coulter's book (restarting from the beginning) and Franken's book. Then I will do an honest report here if you do the same.

In the meantime, look up just the above examples. I hope you are horrified at her leack of credibility.

I don't really care to read the books, and I don't care about the nitpicking. Because in light of what I have found anecdotally, I can't find fault with Coulter's mistakes. For all intents and purposes, she's correct.

The NYT is hamstrung by it's own political philosophy, and has published many untruths and outright lies as a result of it's liberal agenda.

Jesse Jackson is a lying, cheating, extorting con-artist. Not opinion here, simple fact. He used his Rainbow/PUSH coalition to impregnate women, stole funds to pay them off, threatens corps with suing and does it well.

So she doesn't give the known facts about Truman. It seems I mostly hear about Truman's success in Japan (the other successes you attribute to him are largely untrue. He was not responsible for the Marshall Plan, or even NATO. He saw current operations through to their conclusion, including the A-Bomb.) The good things attributed to Truman are known. She's giving the other side to make a point it seems. That's not lying, Curtis, that's called illustration of a point.

So I haven't read the book, but by YOUR review it seems you're picking apart small details that are irrelevant.

If anything, your nitpicking seems a bit desperate and serves to strengthen my existing opinions.

books make you dumb, thats why I watch tv instead, besides I dont have thumbs, it is hard to get cozy with a book and a cup of coco when you dont have thumbs:(

Originally posted by rusted


I don't really care to read the books, and I don't care about the nitpicking. Because in light of what I have found anecdotally, I can't find fault with Coulter's mistakes. For all intents and purposes, she's correct.

The NYT is hamstrung by it's own political philosophy, and has published many untruths and outright lies as a result of it's liberal agenda.

Jesse Jackson is a lying, cheating, extorting con-artist. Not opinion here, simple fact. He used his Rainbow/PUSH coalition to impregnate women, stole funds to pay them off, threatens corps with suing and does it well.

So she doesn't give the known facts about Truman. It seems I mostly hear about Truman's success in Japan (the other successes you attribute to him are largely untrue. He was not responsible for the Marshall Plan, or even NATO. He saw current operations through to their conclusion, including the A-Bomb.) The good things attributed to Truman are known. She's giving the other side to make a point it seems. That's not lying, Curtis, that's called illustration of a point.

So I haven't read the book, but by YOUR review it seems you're picking apart small details that are irrelevant.

If anything, your nitpicking seems a bit desperate and serves to strengthen my existing opinions.

Rob, how is it nitpicking? These are just a SMALL amount of problems I found in just the part of the book I read. She presents them as FACT and I point out that she is twisting things (the way she uses quotes and LexisNexis) or out right lying to fit her agenda. That's not nitpicking but exposing.

And if she is presnting things to bolster her side of the case, they are not irrelevant. They are relevant to her argument. If they are out right lies, her argument falls flat.

Originally posted by Curtis


Rob, how is it nitpicking? These are just a SMALL amount of problems I found in just the part of the book I read. She presents them as FACT and I point out that she is twisting things (the way she uses quotes and LexisNexis) or out right lying to fit her agenda. That's not nitpicking but exposing.

And if she is presnting things to bolster her side of the case, they are not irrelevant. They are relevant to her argument. If they are out right lies, her argument falls flat.

I see your point if they're presented that way. The meat of the arguments does seem the way I said, but if the presentation is based on blatant lies then you're right, it does invalidate what she says.

I'll have to read it myself now, but I'll get it from the library. No sense in giving her money to see if she's lying. :D

Originally posted by rusted


I see your point if they're presented that way. The meat of the arguments does seem the way I said, but if the presentation is based on blatant lies then you're right, it does invalidate what she says.

I'll have to read it myself now, but I'll get it from the library. No sense in giving her money to see if she's lying. :D

Yeah, I have to finish reading it now. I just need to either track down my copy or go to the library.

I did do a quick search and found a good page that goes into detail on her lies/misrepresentations

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

edit: Here's another one: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

I remember this:

Another favorite tactics of Coulter's is the use of deceptive paraphrases to distort others' viewpoints. Blogger Scoobie Davis has noted that Coulter misrepresents the views of Frank Rich and Bruce Ackerman on the war on terrorism. Early in the book, Coulter writes that "New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that [Attorney General John] Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." The column (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/27/opinion/27RICH.html) that she cites, however, makes no such argument. Coulter also writes that "Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism ('declare war at the first decent opportunity'!) and instead concentrate on 'home-grown extremists.'" Yet Ackerman's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/06/opinion/06ACKE.html) suggests a cautious approach to a global war on terrorism, not "dropping" it, and nowhere does he advocate concentrating on domestic terrorists instead of international terrorists. Coulter's paraphrases are both wild distortions.

The author is nice when he calls it a "distortion" because I call it an outright lie.