• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Does anyone listen to Ann Coulter anymore?

PACKY

Contributor
Dec 24, 2004
6,733
374
✟32,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am starting to find out that I have been being lied to...

The " christian right" is neither,, I am coming to this conclusion simply by what I have read in these forums..in fact It's starting to sway me against orgainized religeon as a whole, maybe we do only have free will?, maybe we are the ONLy ones to guide our lives?,,, with all the self rightous pious statments being tossed around.,. I am starting to question my own faith. as well as the meaning of being a christian? I thought we were to strive to get along with all of humanity not just the ones my goverment tells me to, I thought my only enemy were those who are enemies against god? not the ones I am told to be enemies with by my goverment...
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
58
Tallahassee
✟68,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh, there's just so much more....

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071002.shtml



ANN COULTER'S PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH: At Fox, on-air personalities enjoy a good laugh when fiery Ann Coulter comes calling. Monday morning, she regaled the gang at Fox and Friends with her tale of a grand NEXIS search. Coulter was complaining about the way the press pretends that those Dems are so brainy:
COULTER: “Cerebral Bill Bradley,” for example, I mean that’s the most striking example. You run a Lexis-Nexis search—as I did—on Bill Bradley and you would think his first name was “Cerebral.” His name never got mentioned [inaudible] “Cerebral Bill Bradley.”​
The whole thing sounded like so much fun, we decided to run the same search. So we sent the phrase “cerebral Bill Bradley” through the NEXIS file for the period from 1/1/99 through 4/1/00—the fifteen months when Bradley was running for president. Bradley was, without any question, a press favorite during the bulk of his run. The cerebral solon got oodles of coverage during the period in question.


Our finding? According to current NEXIS files, the phrase “cerebral Bill Bradley” appeared in American newspapers exactly six times in that fifteen-month period. The phrase didn’t appear in any magazine. Here are the six lonely cites in the file. Note the big papers involved here:
  1. <LI type=1>Sandy Grady, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/18/99
    <LI type=1>Sandy Grady, Bergen County Record, 3/23/99
    <LI type=1>Robert Jordan, Boston Globe, 4/23/99
    <LI type=1>Sandy Grady, Raleigh News and Observer, 11/10/99
    <LI type=1>Sandy Grady, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/6/99
  2. Editorial, Albany Times-Union, 3/10/00
That’s right, folks. If it weren’t for Sandy Grady, there would hardly have been a “Cerebral Bill Bradley” at all. According to NEXIS, the only major rag in which the phrase appeared was the Bradley-loving Boston Globe, where the phrase appeared exactly once. The phrase never appeared in the Washington Post or the New York Times. And, of course, the phrase never appeared in Time, U.S. News, or Newsweek. Not even the National Review.
 
Upvote 0

Blemonds

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2003
4,115
88
California
✟4,664.00
Grizzly said:
Hmmm. Let's follow your logic with an example.

Grizzly: Blemonds is an airhead. Or so says BLESSEDBEMEEK.

Later, we find out that BLESSEDBEMEEK did not say it.

Therefore, Grizzly called Blemonds an airhead.

See how that doesn't work? Even if Couric was wrong, it doesn't mean she called Reagan an airhead. It means she misquoted someone. Can you see the difference?
She clearly misrepresented the author. So she was trying to emphasize a point that the author did not make.
 
Upvote 0

Blemonds

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2003
4,115
88
California
✟4,664.00
Grizzly said:
But you left out this one. I'll recut and paste.





The image of Bush as an “airhead”—as the New York Times nonjudgmentally put it—has been lovingly nurtured by the media.Wow! Did the New York Times call Bush an “airhead?” Coulter’s footnote offers two citations. The first is an article by Sam Howe Verhovek on March 12, 2000, right after John McCain dropped his White House campaign. Verhovek’s topic: Where would McCain voters go now that their man was defeated:
VERHOVEK: Bart Ferko, of Oakland Township, Mich., a dance-studio owner, said he had concluded that a real rebel like Mr. McCain could not be elected president. “Obviously, if you’re not part of the network, you’re out,” he said.




Still, if many of these voters express contempt today for both Mr. Gore (“plastic,” “detached,” “a bore” were some of their descriptions) and Mr. Bush (“an airhead,” “out of his depth,” “unqualified”), they also typically said they were likely to vote in November, and to choose one or the other.



In the world of Ann Coulter, that’s an example of the New York Times calling Bush an airhead. Her readers, once again, have no way of knowing how thoroughly they’re being misled.


Again, Ann is being deceptive.
You haven't providedd ny documentation on these quotes, and I do not find them in her book, so unless you have additional info we can only assume they are false.
 
Upvote 0

Blemonds

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2003
4,115
88
California
✟4,664.00
Grizzly said:
Oh, there's just so much more....

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071002.shtml





ANN COULTER'S PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH: At Fox, on-air personalities enjoy a good laugh when fiery Ann Coulter comes calling. Monday morning, she regaled the gang at Fox and Friends with her tale of a grand NEXIS search. Coulter was complaining about the way the press pretends that those Dems are so brainy:
COULTER: “Cerebral Bill Bradley,” for example, I mean that’s the most striking example. You run a Lexis-Nexis search—as I did—on Bill Bradley and you would think his first name was “Cerebral.” His name never got mentioned [inaudible] “Cerebral Bill Bradley.”​
The whole thing sounded like so much fun, we decided to run the same search. So we sent the phrase “cerebral Bill Bradley” through the NEXIS file for the period from 1/1/99 through 4/1/00—the fifteen months when Bradley was running for president. Bradley was, without any question, a press favorite during the bulk of his run. The cerebral solon got oodles of coverage during the period in question.



Our finding? According to current NEXIS files, the phrase “cerebral Bill Bradley” appeared in American newspapers exactly six times in that fifteen-month period. The phrase didn’t appear in any magazine. Here are the six lonely cites in the file. Note the big papers involved here:
  1. <LI type=1>Sandy Grady, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/18/99
    <LI type=1>Sandy Grady, Bergen County Record, 3/23/99
    <LI type=1>Robert Jordan, Boston Globe, 4/23/99
    <LI type=1>Sandy Grady, Raleigh News and Observer, 11/10/99
    <LI type=1>Sandy Grady, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/6/99
  2. Editorial, Albany Times-Union, 3/10/00
That’s right, folks. If it weren’t for Sandy Grady, there would hardly have been a “Cerebral Bill Bradley” at all. According to NEXIS, the only major rag in which the phrase appeared was the Bradley-loving Boston Globe, where the phrase appeared exactly once. The phrase never appeared in the Washington Post or the New York Times. And, of course, the phrase never appeared in Time, U.S. News, or Newsweek. Not even the National Review.
If you reread what Ann said, she ran a search for Bill Bradley, not cerebral Bill Bradley. And she said that running the search, would make you think that his name was Cerebral Bill
Bradley. Your source misrepresented her completely.
 
Upvote 0

Doctrine1st

Official nitwit
Oct 11, 2002
10,009
445
Seattle
Visit site
✟12,523.00
Faith
Politics
US-Others
BLESSEDBETHEMEEK said:
I am starting to find out that I have been being lied to...

The " christian right" is neither,, I am coming to this conclusion simply by what I have read in these forums..in fact It's starting to sway me against orgainized religeon as a whole, maybe we do only have free will?, maybe we are the ONLy ones to guide our lives?,,, with all the self rightous pious statments being tossed around.,. I am starting to question my own faith. as well as the meaning of being a christian? I thought we were to strive to get along with all of humanity not just the ones my goverment tells me to, I thought my only enemy were those who are enemies against god? not the ones I am told to be enemies with by my goverment...
After being here for almost 2 years I have found that you will NOT find the meaning of being Christian, a follower of Christ, in the politics forum. Here Christianity is a sub political party.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
58
Tallahassee
✟68,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Blemonds said:
If you reread what Ann said, she ran a search for Bill Bradley, not cerebral Bill Bradley. And she said that running the search, would make you think that his name was Cerebral Bill
Bradley. Your source misrepresented her completely.

What? How on earth did you get there?

“Cerebral Bill Bradley,” for example, I mean that’s the most striking example. You run a Lexis-Nexis search—as I did—on Bill Bradley and you would think his first name was “Cerebral.” His name never got mentioned [inaudible] “Cerebral Bill Bradley.”

She clearly says that she ran a search on Bill Bradley, and then said "you would think his first name is Cerebral". Ann clearly states that she found the word "cerebral" associated with the name Bill Bradley. But that was clearly not the case. It only happened 6 times.

Do you understand? Ann said that she did a search on Bill Bradley, and the phrase cerebral came up so many times that you would think cerebral was his first name.

Except it only happened 6 times. And only once in a major newspaper.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
58
Tallahassee
✟68,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Blemonds said:
You haven't providedd ny documentation on these quotes, and I do not find them in her book, so unless you have additional info we can only assume they are false.

I did provide documentation in the original post. Ann said it on page 134 of her book Slander.


COULTER (page 134): Another Republican who failed to meet the exacting IQ standards of the media is President George W. Bush. The image of Bush as an “airhead”—as the New York Times nonjudgmentally put it—has been lovingly nurtured by the media.​
 
Upvote 0

praying

Snazzy Title Goes Here
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2004
32,648
1,608
68
New Jersey
✟108,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Doctrine1st said:
After being here for almost 2 years I have found that you will NOT find the meaning of being Christian, a follower of Christ, in the politics forum. Here Christianity is a sub political party.


I don't if I should be amuse by tjis or saddened
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
58
Tallahassee
✟68,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Blemonds said:
She clearly misrepresented the author. So she was trying to emphasize a point that the author did not make.

The original author said he thought Reagan was an "apparent airhead" instead of "airhead".
 
Upvote 0

Norseman

EAC Representative
Apr 29, 2004
4,706
256
22
Currently in China
✟28,677.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
mhatten said:
okay off topic but everytime I post it goes back to the first page is anyone else experiencing this very annoying problem? :mad:

Yeah, same thing happens to me. I'm on a 40 posts per page thing though, so I don't notice it all the time.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
58
Tallahassee
✟68,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh my. There's just so much of it......

http://www.dailyhowler.com/n070802.shtml


COULTER (page 1): For his evident belief in a higher being, DeLay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. (“History teaches that when religion is injected into politics—the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo—disaster follows.”).

This was footnoted to Maureen Dowd.


DOWD: The season of sanctimony isn’t confined to the legislative branch. According to Time, George W. Bush decided to run for President at a private prayer service with his family last January: “Pastor Mark Craig started preaching about duty, about how Moses tried to resist God’s call, and the sacrifice that leadership requires. And as they sat there, Barbara Bush leaned over to the son who has always been most like her and said, ‘He’s talking to you, George.’”


You’d think W. would be aware of the perils of religiosity after he had to spend all that time clarifying his 1993 comment that people who do not accept Jesus Christ as a personal Saviour cannot go to Heaven.

In his announcement speech in Carthage, Al Gore joined the God Squad, intoning that “most Americans are hungry for a deeper connection between politics and moral values; many would say ‘spiritual values.’ Without values of conscience, our political life degenerates.” Faith is an intensely personal matter. It should not be treated as a credential or reduced to a sound bite. History teaches that when religion is injected into politics—the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo—disaster follows.


Does anyone see a comparision of Tom Delay to savage murderers? If anyone has a right to be upset, it's probably Al Gore. But even then, it's just a general statement that religion and politics don't mix well.


But that's Ann. Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
58
Tallahassee
✟68,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh. Will someone please make it stop....

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072602.shtml

When President Reagan sought re-election, Coulter says, the liberals conspired to get him:
COULTER (page 132): Most peculiarly, a spate of general-interest articles on senility began to pop up in large-circulation magazines. In the ten months before the 1984 election, Newsweek, Time, Ladies’ Home Journal and U.S. News & World Report all ran major pieces on senility. That’s too many to be a coincidence. The LexisNexis archives yield only one magazine article on senility (U.S. News) in 1976; zero in 1980; zero in 1988; zero in 1992; one in 1996 (Time magazine); and one in 2000 (Maclean’s). In other words, the same number of magazine articles on senility were published in 1984 alone as in all other presidential election years combined in the last quarter of the twentieth century.​
Coulter’s cites all carried footnotes. Incomparably, we looked them all up.


Coulter was right on one key point; the four pieces were not “a coincidence.” Two of the articles (Newsweek and Time) were written about Reagan’s stumbling performance at the October 7 debate—a performance so weak that the president’s campaign manager, Sen. Paul Laxalt, said that Reagan “had an off night…but it wasn’t because of any physical or mental deficiency. He was brutalized by a briefing process that didn’t make any sense…It filled his head with so many facts and figures that he lost his spontaneity and his visionary concepts.” In short, the mags were simply exploring a topic which was being widely discussed. Readers will see how Time took advantage:
TIME (10/22/84): About 10% of Americans between the ages of 65 and 75 are senile. The President clearly is not. Doctors watching the debate saw no signs of slurred speech or outright memory loss, the usual telltales. They did suggest that Reagan should be regularly tested for mental acuity. Though Reagan promised in 1980 that he would undergo testing for senility if elected, so far he has not. Earlier this year he told an interviewer that he would take the tests “only if there was some indication that I was drifting…Nothing like that has happened.”

…Stress, not age, may explain Reagan’s slips. “Any of us could be capable of that kind of performance live on national TV,” said Dr. William Applegate, a geriatrics expert at the University of Tennessee.

There is no reason to believe that Reagan’s intelligence is diminishing. “The competence of an individual does not change much with age,” said Dr. T. Franklin Williams, director of the National Institute on Aging. "Many people in their 80s and 90s are quite capable of being President.” Reagan has aged less visibly in office than most of his modern predecessors. Indeed, his robust example may undermine the notion that age necessarily saps vigor. Said Spar: “Nowadays people between 65 and 75 are statistically more like young people than they are like old people.”

Her readers have no way to know it, but this was part of the War on Reagan which Coulter flogs in her book. Meanwhile, the Newsweek piece which Coulter cites ended with this assessment:
NEWSWEEK (10/22/84): Doctors see no reason why a man Reagan’s age shouldn’t be president. They cite Winston Churchill, among others, as an impressive precedent. And, they point out, decision makers often suffer less stress than the younger people who execute their edicts. “There’s no reason a priori why someone in his 70s may not be just the person we need,” says Albert. “Sometimes, those very people have the accumulated wisdom, knowledge and expertise to deal wisely with complex situations.”​
The article—a “major piece on senility”—never once mentions the word. By the way, was it only “the liberals” who were discussing Reagan’s performance? As Newsweek noted in its piece, the first such examination was a front-page article in the editorially conservative Wall Street Journal. “IS OLDEST U.S. PRESIDENT NOW SHOWING HIS AGE?” the headline had said. “REAGAN DEBATE PERFORMANCE INVITES OPEN SPECULATION ON HIS ABILITY TO SERVE.”


OK, but was Ladies’ Home Journal runnin’ down Ron when its published its “major piece” back in August? Sorry. That article was wholly personal, a writer’s report on the health care received by her elderly mother. It had nothing whatever to do with Reagan. And to the extent that it offered an overview, this is what it said:
LADIES HOME JOURNAL (8/84): [Medical professionals] should be well aware that “old age” and “senility” are not interchangeable terms. In fact, only 5 percent of older people ever suffer from severe intellectual impairment. Fifteen percent may suffer some mild disability, such as minor memory loss. But 80 percent of those who live to very old age, into their eighties or even nineties, never experience any symptoms of senility at all. We tend to forget that Picasso was painting the last day of his life. He died at ninety-one. Alfred Hitchcock was planning a new film. He died at eighty. Martha Graham, America’s greatest dancer and choreographer, produced brilliant new dances this year—the year of her ninetieth birthday. What is true for them is true for hundreds of thousands of older Americans…

And how about that U. S. News piece? Its headline: “Dynamic Elderly; Busier, Healthier, Happier.” Here’s how the agit-prop started:
U. S. NEWS (7/2/84): With more than 1 out of 10 Americans now over 65, the nation is seeing the rise of a powerful “gerontocracy” of elderly who are healthier, richer, better educated and politically more active than older generations of the past.
President Ronald Reagan is 73 years old. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Jr., is 78. Nobel scientist Barbara McClintock, 82, carries on her work in a Long Island laboratory. Houston surgeon Michael DeBakey, 75, still performs heart transplants. Runner Johnny Kelley, 76, has competed in 53 Boston marathons. Today, the average life span is an unprecedented 74 years—up from only 47 in 1900.​
The mag ran an interview with gerontologist Robert Butler. He too praised the robust Reagan. “There needs to be a certain amount of tension, stress and triumph in life,” Butler said. “President Reagan, at age 73, is a good example. He seems to love his job. He feels very much in command and derives much stimulation and satisfaction from being President.” That’s how the liberals at U. S. News tried to bring Ron to his end.
According to Coulter, those are the four “major pieces on senility” the liberals gimmicked up to get Reagan. Strangely, they all stressed Reagan’s “robust example” or the high achievements of the “dynamic elderly.” By the way—if the liberals were trying to get Ronald Reagan, don’t you think that someone would have written a scary piece about aging? No such piece was ever produced. So Coulter just made a few up.
 
Upvote 0

PACKY

Contributor
Dec 24, 2004
6,733
374
✟32,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
grizzly why even respond to his questions? he appears to be just a angry person who has no points to make and simply dissects others posts in a effort to give himself some type of credibility I have found that when you converse with a angry person the only thing that will change is that you to will become angry... we would all be better served as well as the spirit of good debate if we just ignored them..
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,043
1,674
58
Tallahassee
✟68,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
BLESSEDBETHEMEEK said:
grizzly why even respond to his questions? he appears to be just a angry person who has no points to make and simply dissects others posts in a effort to give himself some type of credibility I have found that when you converse with a angry person the only thing that will change is that you to will become angry... we would all be better served as well as the spirit of good debate if we just ignored them..

Those are wise words - especially about conversing with angry people. I think I'll just walk away for awhile, go outside and take down the rest of my Christmas lights. Thanks for the advice. :)
 
Upvote 0

PACKY

Contributor
Dec 24, 2004
6,733
374
✟32,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Grizzly said:
Those are wise words - especially about conversing with angry people. I think I'll just walk away for awhile, go outside and take down the rest of my Christmas lights. Thanks for the advice. :)

Look at me I got sucked into it, I have had many PM's about ignoring some people on this forums as they "flame" other people in a effort to discreidt the truth, theres some people out there who are just so opinionated and soindoctrinated by what they hear that even when they are shown damning evidence that they are 100% wrong they will still argue just for the sake of argument and ego...I thank you Grizzly.. I have learned from you and mhatten.
I am just hoping that we all can take this advice and stop feeding into the spirit of argument and instead fill the spirit of good debate.
Peace and Blessings to you....:hug:
 
Upvote 0

PACKY

Contributor
Dec 24, 2004
6,733
374
✟32,235.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Grizzly said:
Those are wise words - especially about conversing with angry people. I think I'll just walk away for awhile, go outside and take down the rest of my Christmas lights. Thanks for the advice. :)

You know Grizzly.. some people just feel the need to be the schoolyard bully no matter the media or venue they are in...
Peace.
 
Upvote 0

jsn112

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2004
3,332
145
✟5,679.00
Faith
Non-Denom
UberLutheran said:
...

We liberals have Bill Clinton and Michael Moore thrown in our faces all the time. Frankly, I'm glad conservatives have Ann Coulter and Michael Savage as their "exemplars". ;)

Michael Savage is NOT a conservative. He is a libertarian. By the way, I am glad we don't have Al Sharton and Jesse Jackson on our side. They are trashing the religion I highly respect and worship.
 
Upvote 0

Cliche Guevara

Senior Member
Oct 17, 2004
789
84
✟1,362.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
SpaceProg said:
So it's been reduced to "She hit me first!" as justification for spewing back the same stuff that a lot of folks here are railing at her for doing?

No, Space Prog, it's about making sure that there really is never a social climate created by anyone that fosters the kind of nasty groupthink that lead to the rise of Nazism and Fascism in Europe in the 30's.

We remember those times and say "never forget and never again!", yet when we try to make sure it never happens again and we recognise the seeds taking root and we call it - people cry Godwin's Law!
 
Upvote 0