"Slander", by Ann Coulter

R

Reel Deal

#1
#1
It was slim pickings in the airport bookstore, so I picked up a copy of Ann Coulter’s book, “Slander”, about liberal media bias. I had read a rebuttal article (I forget where) that debunked about a dozen or so “points” she brought out in the book. I bought the book, and found it most intriguing that a critic found a dozen points-out of maybe a thousand points SHE brought out. A good read for you political junkies out there

Anybody else read it? Any comments?

I also found this link of a short video of Coulter being interviewed by the Perky One, Katie Couric. Quite interesting…:

http://msnbc.com/m/mw/mw.asp?t=V&id=tdy_coulter_slander_020626&sk=&pl=&name=&opt=0
 
P

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#2
#2
I read about half of it. It got pretty boring after a while. I thought Bernard Goldberg's book (Bias) was better -- I think I read 3/4 of that.

But, how about the idea of Katie Coric & Ann Coulter in a three-way. Now that would hold my attention all the way.
 
Last edited:
R

Reel Deal

#3
#3
It's like piling on...

Hot off the press:

ABC, CBS, and NBC will not be carrying Dubya's prime-time speech re: Iraq tonight.

Media bias?

They used to carry Bill's speeches about car baby seats and Americorp.

But not war.

You decide.
 
P

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#4
#4
Flounder is falling down on the job!!

Reel Deal, you cruised right by Silver without anyone noticing. (I estimate it was your first post above)

Shame on us!

Welcome to Silver!!!!
 
O

oddfellow4870

#5
#5
Re: It's like piling on...

Originally posted by Reel Deal
Hot off the press:

ABC, CBS, and NBC will not be carrying Dubya's prime-time speech re: Iraq tonight.

Media bias?

They used to carry Bill's speeches about car baby seats and Americorp.

But not war.

You decide.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the last two months of the Network TV press have been a riot. Keep in mind that the press expresses its opinion by what opinions they choose to air and how often they air them. This usually means that democrats and their agendas get airplay. Anyway, here's the chronology.

August: "The president has not made his case to the american people. He must make his case!"

September: "The president is being forced to bring his secret war ino the light! The secret government is being exposed for what it is !"

Then Dubya blows em away at the UN, forever erasing the "no gravitas" BS they tried on him in 10/2000.

October: GW's bill passes both houses with huge margins.
The 3 major networks decide not to air GW's speech.

Gee I guess he made his case without their help... Wouldn't want him to be TOO effective in making his case, I guess.

What a bunch of lying scumbags.......

My favorite example of medis bias was the day that Clinton's cronies were being convicted on 80% of the counts against them in an Arkansas court and CBS ran a piece on the discovery of the lost JFK tapes in the first position. It ran over 10 minutes......
 
Last edited:
R

Reel Deal

#6
#6
The most interesting fact about the strong media bias is this: when was the last time "their guy" got a MAJORITY of the popular vote in a presidential election?

LBJ?

This gives me faith in the intellect of the American people.

And the major media wonders why no one pays much attention to them, and Fox is the fastest growing network...
 
P

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#7
#7
Originally posted by Reel Deal
The most interesting fact about the strong media bias is this: when was the last time "their guy" got a MAJORITY of the popular vote in a presidential election?
Click to expand...
Actually, Gore got the majority of the votes cast in 2000, but less than 50% (if that is what you meant).

Bush - 50,455,156 (47.87%)
Gore - 50,992,335 (48.38%)
Nader - 2,882,897 ( 2.74%)

However, just like the World Series is won by the team that wins the most games (not scores the most points), the only thing that counts is electoral vote -- 271 GW, 266 AG.
 
D

donquixote04

#8
#8
majority vs. plurality

Originally posted by pjorourke


Actually, Gore got the majority of the votes cast in 2000, but less than 50% (if that is what you meant).

Bush - 50,455,156 (47.87%)
Gore - 50,992,335 (48.38%)
Nader - 2,882,897 ( 2.74%)
Click to expand...
pj, I'm surprised that a political junkie like you didn't immediately pick-up that the question referred to actual majority, not plurality. I think the LBJ reference was correct (re the last Democratic president to receive a majority of the popular vote). I suspect that last Republican president with the same distinction was Reagan.
 
J

justbill_redux

King Missile
#9
#9
Originally posted by Reel Deal
The most interesting fact about the strong media bias is this: when was the last time "their guy" got a MAJORITY of the popular vote in a presidential election?

LBJ?

This gives me faith in the intellect of the American people.

And the major media wonders why no one pays much attention to them, and Fox is the fastest growing network...
Click to expand...
And the correct answer is.......

Jimmy Carter in 1976 with 50.06% of the popular vote. For results of past elections see

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

At the risk of getting flamed to death, Ann Coulter should have been on that plane with Barbara Olson.
 
Last edited:
R

redleg609

#10
#10
Re: majority vs. plurality

Originally posted by donquixote04
(SNIP...) . I suspect that last Republican president with the same distinction was Reagan.
Click to expand...
1988 results
Popular Vote ---------- Electoral
George Bush --- 48,886,588 53.37% - 426
Michael Dukakis 41,809,485 45.65% - 111
 
Last edited:
R

Reel Deal

#11
#11
Originally posted by justbill_redux
At the risk of getting flamed to death, Ann Coulter should have been on that plane with Barbara Olson.
Click to expand...
Isn't that non-politically correct Hate Speech? Shame, shame, shame on a good Progressive...

But I agree that the execs at NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Atlanta Urinal Constipation, and the Boston Globe (did I leave someone out) may agree with you.

Carter got 50.06%? Gosh. I thought John Anderson screwed that pooch...
 
Last edited:
R

redleg609

#12
#12
Originally posted by justbill_redux

(SNIP...)
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html
(...SNIP) .
Click to expand...
Fascinating site. I checked out a bunch of elections. Including, the only president to whom I am related. I have a Dutch streak in the family that dates back to the 1600's in the Hudson River Valley.

Anyway, in 1836 Martin Van Buren recieved 764,176 votes for 50.83% of the popular vote and 170 electoral votes for 57.8%. Thereby soundly defeating William Harrison and field of 3 other also rans (including Daniel Webster).
 
P

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#13
#13
Originally posted by Reel Deal
Isn't that non-politically correct Hate Speech? Shame, shame, shame on a good Progressive...

But I agree that the execs at NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Atlanta Urinal Constipation, and the Boston Globe (did I leave someone out) may agree with you.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly the point she makes repeatedly in her book. Liberals feel free to treat Conservatives as sub-humans and dismiss them without confronting their arguments. justbill_redux's comment propbably would be considered hate speech under most of the laws that the Libs wanted passed. Of course, it was commonly understood that those laws excluded any hate speech directed at Conservatives (regardless of the target's color or gender)

Carter got 50.06%? Gosh. I thought John Anderson screwed that pooch...
Click to expand...
I thought the same thing, but the site I checked for numbers was not as thorough as the one justbill_redux (that noted Hate Speecher) cited. It didn't show the 800,000 some votes for other. But anyway, John Anderson's high water mark was in 1980 against Reagan & Carter when he got 5.7 million (7%) of the vote. Our boy Ed Clark got almost a million (1%) that year too, but Reagan still stomped the bejeasus out of Carter 51%-41%
 
O

oddfellow4870

#14
#14
A key part of the Political Correctness movement is inequality.

Black History Month is Good.

Anything white exclusive is bad.

Can't pick on any minority, homosexual or woman

Can pick on Southerners and evangelicals

Conservatives are extremists

Liberals are moderates

You know the drill.

I was at a party with a group of theater folks once, where a lot of my friends (who are gay) were ranking on southerners and evangelicals. I couldn't help myself, so I said,

"Isn't it great that diversity doesn't have to include southerners and evangelicals!"

Blank stares and silence..........

The last thing they want is equality...... But they are still my friends. Cause I actually believe in diversity.
 
J

justbill_redux

King Missile
#18
#18
Originally posted by Reel Deal
But I agree that the execs at NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Atlanta Urinal Constipation, and the Boston Globe (did I leave someone out) may agree with you.
Click to expand...
Thank god for Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. "We report, you decide"
 
S

skagen

#19
#19
Sorry I don't see what the big deal is. The fact that somebody is in the media spotlight doesn't mean they necesarily have a brain, let alone a relevant point.

This Ann Coulter chick is famous for exactly two reasons:

1) overy long blonde hair that is most likey dyed
2) wearing skirts on CNN that are far more appropriate for a hooker on Hunt's Point
3) crosing and uncrossing her legs to highlight the above

None of that makes her worth LISTENING to any more that the airhead ditz that you sit next to in an local bar. I've met more insightful women than Ann Coulter in $200 brothel - and they most likely suck dick better than she does, too.

Sorry, but you all should have better standards of qualification for political pundits in this country, no matter your political persuasion. Shame on anyone attempting to present this $2 ho as a political voice worthy of anyone's time or thought...
 
R

Reel Deal

#20
#20
Skagen

You obviously have never read the book. If you had, you would laugh out loud at your last post.

Your ugly personal attack of Ann Coulter is a typical example of how the Left (through their media comrades) attacks Conservatives when they can't argue facts.

Thank you for swerving into the truths she so well documented in her book.

You have never met her, but feel comfortable to call her a ho, ditz, etc. And then you attack her appearance. Typical.

Would you make the same personal comments about Katie Couric or Leslie Stahl about their dye job, and their ability to suck dick?

The fact that somebody is in the media spotlight doesn't mean they necesarily have a brain, let alone a relevant point.
Click to expand...
That is another point she makes in her book. But Conservatives/Libertarians have had to endure the Liberal Media Talking Heads for YEARS. Fox arrives, kicks ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS ass with "we report, you decide", and you would think that Hitler succeeded in a governmental coup...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top